A Free Pass

“He got a free pass,” said the journalist whose name of course I can’t remember. But I do remember thinking, “wow, so somebody agrees with me.”

Readers of this blog will know—I never wasted much time, or indeed any time, thinking up nice things to say about Joseph Ratzinger, the guy whose one unconventional move was to resign and become Pope Emeritus. But Ratzinger took it on the chin all during his papacy—and however much he kicked and clawed to get there, it must have given him little joy.

Yet the journalist cited above wasn’t talking about Ratzinger, but about John Paul II—and I couldn’t agree more. Because what did he have?

Call it the Ronald Reagan effect—it didn’t matter what he said, he looked the part. In fact, playing president of the United States was Reagan’s biggest role. And John Paul did exactly the same.

“He never listened to anyone—he was always talking,” said the journalist. “He had some 100 speeches, and he went around the world making them. But he never listened to anyone. He was theologically conservative, and he let the curia rule—and nearly ruin—the church. And after doing nothing about the priest abuse scandals, then the whole thing erupted during Benedict’s watch. But it was mostly John Paul’s doing. And the press never challenged John Paul, never questioned why he wasn’t acting more decisively. They idolized him.”

Oh, and speaking of the press—where is our press? Because though I’m not a journalist, I did grow up around them. And so when the news came out that Jozef Wesolowski, the ex papal nuncio to the Dominican Republic now being investigated for sexual abuse of minors, hung out in Arecibo and may have engaged in illicit activities—well, I sat back and expected the press to tackle the story.

What did they do?

They acted as press agents for the Catholic Church. The New York Times, in contrast, asked some difficult questions of the Vatican. Questions like why did the church recall Wesolowski, when in 2010 it established new rules that said that anyone—Vatican employee or a member of the diplomatic corps—accused of sexual abuse would be turned over to the civil authorities in the country in which the abuse took place? Had the Dominican Republic been notified? Yes—by the press, not the church.

Here’s what the Times said:

The Vatican’s own rules for conducting sexual abuse investigations under church law call for cooperation with the civil authorities and reporting abuse allegations to the police where laws require it. Those norms were shaped after an explosion of sexual abuse cases in 2010, when thousands of people came forward in Europe, South America and elsewhere detailing abuse by priests whom church officials had not reported to the police.

To my knowledge, nobody locally picked it up. Why not? Is the Times too difficult to read?

Or what about this tidbit, which I quoted yesterday:

El ex nuncio Josef Wesolowski obstaculizó investigaciones de pederastia en Puerto Rico contra más de una decena de sacerdotes de la diócesis de Arecibo.

So Wesolowski hindered more than a dozen pederast priest cases in the diocese of Arecibo and nobody is going after that?

And is anybody aware that this case is unique because it is the first time a Vatican official may have committed crimes in Puerto Rico? And Puerto Rico, by the way, falls under US jurisdiction. So that means that for the first time, after years of trying, a court can challenge the Vatican directly—instead of whatever diocese the bishop or priest belonged to. And that might lead to a mother lode of information.

Is anybody asking our justice department if they are conducting an investigation of the more-than-dozen cases that Wesolowski may have obstructed? Is our justice department cooperating with the Dominican Republic? Are they considering pressing charges? And by the way, are there any abuse victims out there? What’s their story, and are they considering pressing charges?

Is anybody poking around Arecibo, trying to figure out why the Catholic Church had to close down an entire seminary? Was it that full of gay men?

Or we could ask—what about the rumor that there was a close relationship between Wesolowski and the former bishop of Arecibo, Iñaki Mallona? Oh, and where is the former bishop? Is he still in Puerto Rico? Because an odd thing seems to happen in the Catholic Church—clerics tend to be curiously out of sight. I have just consulted the website Switchboard.com and learned that there is a Marc Newhouse, age 57, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Oh, and I got my number, as I did for five of my friends. But frequently, when I try the same thing for a member of the clergy, I can’t track them down. They are living in rectories or parish houses or retreats or somewhere; they tend not to have phones in their own name, except, of course, for cell phones. So they’re hard to find. 

The New Day, our local paper, has a large staff of reporters. But does it have a religion editor? Most papers do. And on an island where 80% of the population is Catholic, shouldn’t there be at least one reporter who’s on top of issues affecting the church?

Just as John Paul got a free pass, so, in Puerto Rico last week…

…did the Catholic Church.

The Clerics and the Choir Boys

Where’s Wesolowski?

The best answer is that Jozef Wesolowski, the former papal nuncio to the Dominican Republic, is somewhere in the Vatican, after he was recalled in August before reports of his alleged pedophile crimes were made public.

Right, you are saying. Another pedophile priest—ho-hum! Get on with it, Marc—find something new!

Well, here’s what’s new. First of all, the papal nuncio is an ambassador—he is the pope’s personal ambassador to—in this case—the government of the Dominican Republic. So? He’s got diplomatic immunity.

Second, Wesolowski is the highest Vatican official to be charged with sex abuse crimes, and more importantly, he’s a Vatican employee. Why is that important? Because for years, the Vatican has held that individual priests and bishops are not Vatican employees. Therefore, American courts cannot haul the Vatican into court, or force the Vatican to reveal documents or files.

This, of course, is a little screwy because when a priest is defrocked, or asks to leave the priesthood, or is accused of sexual abuse of minors—what happens? The bishop sits down and writes to the Vatican, and waits for an answer.

Well, the Vatican is on God’s time—and God, it appears, moves slowly, majestically, and without care for the hustle and haste that the rest of us spin out our lives with. So that means the bishop is down checking the mailbox every morning for years on end, and the pederast priest is still in business. No wonder the bishops were shuffling the pederast priests around—what else could they do?

Ah, but wait! Because in July of this year, Pope Francis…well, here’s a quote from The Huffington Post:

Francis in July also signed off on legislation criminalizing child sex abuse and other sexual crimes, with punishments ranging up to more than a decade in prison – laws that apply to Vatican employees as well as diplomatic staff. Those new laws, however, can't be applied retroactively in this case, officials say.    

The same article goes on to say:

The Vatican's own rules for conducting sex abuse investigations under church law calls for cooperation with civil authorities and reporting of abuse allegations to police where such laws require it. Those norms were crafted in the wake of the explosion of sex abuse cases in 2010, where thousands of people came forward in Europe, South America and elsewhere detailing abuse by priests who were never reported to police even though their bishops knew they were pedophiles.

Attorney General Francisco Domínguez Brito has said if the government finds any concrete evidence against Wesolowski, it would seek his extradition. He noted, however, that the Dominican Republic has no extradition agreement with the Vatican.

Hey, wait—the Pope was told in July of this year about Wesolowski, but did anyone run over to the police headquarters to fill them in? They had, after all, a couple of months—easily—to do so, before the Vatican withdrew its ambassador.

The article was written on September 12 of this year. Five days ago, Brito announced that the case against Wesolowski is nearly complete—he was putting the finishing touches on it. The article then goes on to quote a cardinal in the Dominican Republic:

En ese sentido, el cardenal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez reiteró que esa situación le “avergüenza” y manifestó que destituido embajador del Vaticano será juzgado en la Santa Sede por un tribunal especial que conoce esos casos.

“El nuncio tiene que ser juzgado en el tribunal del Vaticano. Allá hay muchos tribunales, pero el que conoce el caso es Doctrina de la Fe”, puntualizó.

Agregó que Wesolowsky no puede ser extraditado por su condición diplomática y conforme a lo establecido en el tratado de Viena, del que la República Dominicana es signataria.

“Los diplomáticos tienen que ser juzgados en los países que representan, según la convención de Viena”, resaltó López Rodríguez.

What’s the cardinal saying? “The nuncio has to be tried by a Vatican court. There are many courts there, but the one which has knowledge of this case is the Doctrine of the Faith.

“He added that Wesolowski cannot be extradited do to his position as diplomat as established by the Treaty of Vienna.”

Right—that’s not Brito speaking, but a cardinal, though one could ask how he got into the picture. So it’s unclear—what’s Brito thinking?

Several other questions come to mind. According to one report:

REDACCIÓN CENTRAL.- El ex nuncio Josef Wesolowski obstaculizó investigaciones de pederastia en Puerto Rico contra más de una decena de sacerdotes de la diócesis de Arecibo.

I won’t translate except to say:

obstaculizó—hindered

decena—dozen

sacerdote—priest

Hmmm—just a second. Wesolowski was on American soil, hindering investigations of sexual abuse by priests. Hey, guess what! Wesolowski may have the privilege of being the first Vatican official on a witness stand in an American court. 

Next on the list—Wesolowski was not the only Polish guy running around in the Dominican Republic. There was also a priest… but let El Nuevo Día tell the story:

Precisamente, el jueves, las autoridades dominicanas le solicitaron  a la Interpol que ayude con la captura de otro sacerdote de origen polaco, Wojciech Gil, quien presuntamente también cometió actos sexuales contra menores en el vecino país.

And why do the Dominican authorities need the help of Interpol to find Wojciech Gil? Because at about the same time that the Vatican recalled Wesolowski, Gil got it into his head to return home to his beloved Poland.

So we have the perfect storm for the Vatican. It says it cooperates with local authorities—does it? And why is it that they pulled Wesolowski, and didn’t report to the local authorities, as their own policy dictated? Will the Vatican allow for extradition of one Polish priest but not another—an ambassador? Its new laws allow for up to ten years in prison—but will it loophole Weslowski? As it is—the worst thing that could happen to him is to be defrocked.

Two things come to mind. First, whatever the legality of the situation is, the morality is—to this old atheist—pretty clear. A guy was screwing around with kids—he should be punished, and punished by the laws of that country. If the Vatican insists on diplomatic immunity, the whole world will be laughing. Or at least those of us who have no illusions about the Vatican. The faithful will be seething.

Second, get ready, both of you guys, for a taste of the Dominican legal system. As I understand it, it operates on the belief that the defendant is guilty until found innocent. Oh, and guess what? Dominican jails are notorious—filthy, dirt floors, rats, no food or provisions unless provided by family. Puerto Ricans will remember dear Laura Hernández….

But look at the bright side.

Won’t be cold!

A Bad Smell Coming Out of Arecibo

I only caught the last three minutes of it, but it was arresting.

José Colón Otero, a Catholic priest from Arecibo, 50 miles west of San Juan, was on page 4 of the printed version of The New Day, our local rag—and no, not in the way he or anyone would want to be. Why? Well, the headline tells the story—Sacudida la Diócesis de Arecibo or Shaken, the Diocese of Arecibo.

Yes, shaken and not stirred. For the diocese has been hit with allegations of covering up abusive priests, persecuting victims who attempted to go public or press for reforms, and attempting to inhibit lay people calling for investigations.

And just now, Colón Otero has walked into the very sunny and even hotter plaza del pueblo to defend his name.

Among other things, one of his detractors, Luis Jaume Andújar, alleges that he saw Colón Otero kiss a seminarian and touch his genitals. Jaume Andújar confronted Colón Otero, and the two ended up in a fight, which landed them in court. So Jaume Andújar was found guilty, and paid fifty bucks rather than apologize to the priest.

Let them come forward, Colón Otero was saying in the plaza just now—I’ve come forward and met the press, let those who have allegations come forward and let’s submit this to an ecclesiastical court.

Well, perhaps one who will come forward is the vicario parroquial José Pío González Garavito—who wrote out a 27-page sworn declaration stating, among other things, that boys stayed overnight in the parish house, and couldn’t look him in the eye the next morning.

There are other allegations—supposedly, an investigation in 2010 resulted in the dismissal of at least four priests, the expulsion of nine seminarians, and the closure of the Jesús Maestro Seminary in Arecibo. In fact, one seminarian, Daniel Collazo Rivera, said that some of the teachers in the seminary were making advances, and others were in established long-term gay relationships. This, he alleges, was known but covered up by the high hierarchy.

And who is that high hierarchy? Well, the former bishop of Arecibo, Iñaki Mallona and an old friend, Josef Wesolowski, the archenemy of the Archbishop of San Juan and the man who is being investigated for various sexual abuses in Santo Domingo, where he was the papal nuncio. And it seems that Wesolowski was a frequent visitor to Arecibo. Both, alleges the seminarian Collazo Rivera, knew about what was going on.

And so did Rome, or rather the Vatican, since he and six other seminarians sent a letter to the Vatican complaining of what was happening in the seminary. They complained of Colón Otero—whom they say was booted out of Spain for kissing a seminarian—and three other priests who were engaging in moral misconduct. Oh, and Collazo Rivera alleged that there is a mafia in the church. Supposedly, he was offered a stipend of $500 monthly plus books to study at another seminary, but declined. Why? He’s lost his faith.

These sentiments—or similar ones—are echoed by Mayra Méndez Toledo, a Catholic lay person who appeared in the electronic version of the New Day holding a binder full of correspondence—supposedly related to these charges. She too alleges that there has been secrecy, cover up, and threats against those speaking up.

In the meantime, the archbishop of San Juan is speaking up, defending the new bishop of Arecibo, Daniel Fernández Torres, and denying that there is any “mafia” in the church. He also let the interesting fact drop that he has dismissed 32 priests in his time in Puerto Rico for various charges, some including sexual improprieties.

Yeah?

I wrote about this issue in May of this year, after happening on a website that listed not 32 but 14 priests accused of abuse in Puerto Rico. So what about the other 18 priests that the Archbishop alleges he has dismissed? What were they doing—using the Holy Host in Satanic rituals?

Colón Otero may be innocent—I hope he is. But whether he is or not—something is smelling very bad under the hot Puerto Rican sun…..    

La Guerre, Jean-Claude!

Whew—what a relief!

News flash—according to Laura Mills of the Associated Press, Jean-Claude Killy, Chairman of the International Olympic Committee Coordination Commission, is “fully satisfied” that the draconian Russian laws that impose sentences for anyone—even a straight person—who speaks out for the rights of LGBT folk….

…those folk who are getting treated like this: 
 


OK—those are the LGBT folk in Russia, and that’s what happens to them when they try to speak up and protest. But that’s OK—because now, Jean-Claude Killy has determined that what you just saw “doesn't violate the Olympic charter's anti-discrimination clause, and pronounced Russia ready to host the 2014 Winter Games.”

Yeah?

Well, the same article quoted above has a different point of view, in this case from the head of the Human Rights Campaign:

"If this law doesn't violate the IOC's charter, then the charter is completely meaningless," HRC president Chad Griffin said in a statement. "The safety of millions of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Russians and international travelers is at risk, and by all accounts the IOC has completed neglected its responsibility to Olympic athletes, sponsors and fans from around the world."

So what’s going on? Well, in Russia, Putin has a problem: his government is racked with corruption, his election was a dubious affair, and there isn’t much of the transparency that people would like to see. What to do? The old, old story—find a scapegoat, knock off a few heads, and whip up the masses with nationalism and the Mother Church. Which is exactly what he’s done—making the issues of LGBT community into a foreign poison going against sacred Russian values. And not just the LGBT community—remember the Pussy Riot?

Right—so where we once had witches, we now have gay people. Nothing new here.

And nothing really new about the Olympic Commission, either.

For all the talk about how the Olympics are devoted to bringing together young athletes to an international forum to foment good will and sportsmanship—well, can we say it at last?

It’s about money.

And when there’s an unpalatable government that pops up in a place where it had been decided the games would be, what does the International Olympic Committee do?

Remember the 1936 Olympics? By good fortune, Jesse Owens won—which was one in the eye for Adolf Hitler—but if he hadn’t, it would have been a complete international public relations coup for Hitler. As the Sochi Olympics are supposed to be for Putin.

It’s obvious—these games are the most expensive in history; according to the BBC, and may end up costing 50 billion bucks, thirty-billion of which has been stolen in fraudulent construction schemes. And where is all that money coming from?

Or—to ask another question first—where is all that money going to? According to critics of Putin, businessmen close to…guess who.

Jean-Claude Killy dominated the field of skiing in the 60’s; he now is busy assuring the world that all is OK in Russia, and that “the IOC doesn't have the right to discuss the laws that are in place in the country hosting the games, so unless the charter is violated we are fully satisfied."

Well, Jean-Claude may have hit one too many rocks tumbling down those mountainsides, because according to Keith Olbermann, in the clip you see below, all may not be so fine in the marketing department. For it seems that Gerhard Heiberg, a gloomy Norwegian—they tend to be, you know—isn’t liking what he’s hearing, especially from his US and European sponsors. Have a listen:

Right—you know, Heiberg may know a thing or two. Because if gay people can risk getting the shit beaten out of them in Russia—as well as Uganda and Jamaica and a host of other countries where homosexuality is an invitation to a death wish—gay men and women can absolutely walk into their local supermarket.

Walk in with stickers….

Stickers like this….

Feel free to save this image and print on 2.68" x 2" stickers (15 per sheet @ less than 20 bucks for 100 sheets)!

Grant Wood Doesn't Live There Anymore

Guys, guys—you’re making it too easy today!

Usually I have to scrounge to find the issue on which to build up, enjoy thoroughly, and vent explosively the moral outrage that—growing up Norwegian-American in the Midwest—I seem to need so much. Today it just hopped out at me.

I bring you—ta-DAH!—the case of one Brent Girouex, a 31-year old ex-pastor of the Victory Fellowship Church, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Take a look:

“OK,” I can hear you saying, “what has he done?”

Oddly, it isn’t what he’s done that so annoys me. Although that was bad enough—Girouex turned himself in on February 16, 2011, and confessed to having had sex with four teenage boys. Later, eight additional boys would come forward with similar stories.

And what prompted the sex? Simple lechery?

It was more twisted than that. Girouex would tell his victim that they would both pray while Girouex entered him, and that through ejaculation, “the gay would be driven away.”

Nor was this an isolated event—Girouex confessed to having had sex 25-50 times—why do I think the 50 is closer to the mark?—with one of his victims, who was, by the way, 14 at the time of the first encounter / attack.

Here’s a description from one source:

Apparently, Girouex thought he could rape away the gay by “praying while he had sexual contact” with his victims in an effort to keep them “sexually pure” for God.

He then allegedly told police that “when they would ejaculate, they would be getting rid of the evil thoughts in their mind.”

For all of this heinous behavior, Girouex was charged with 61 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor by a counselor and 28 counts of third-degree rape. And since he had confessed, he was convicted, and given a 17-year sentence.

Enter the second—and possibly more vicious—villain, Judge Greg Steensland. Because Steensland presided over the trial, saw the prisoner at the bar, looked at and heard the testimony of the victims, and then “suspended the prison sentence and replaced it with 5 years of probation (the maximum allowed under the law) as well as a requirement for Girouex to participate in sex offender rehabilitation treatment.”

89 counts of rape and sexual exploitation and he gets 5 years of probation? This was, mind you, in March of 2012. What else happened in 2012?

Well, the nation went off on November 6, 2012, to return Barack Obama to the presidency, as well as to take care of state and local matters. And so Greg Steensland was up for reelection. And was he roundly defeated? Nope, he was reelected, by 66.34% of the vote.

So 2 out of 3 voters in the fourth district of Iowa think it’s OK to have a judge sitting on the bench give out a 5-year suspended sentence for 89 counts of rape? Who was the guy running against him—Genghis Khan? Hannibal Lecter? How could this guy get elected?

And here I will put my regional chauvinism fully bared for public view. Look, guys—we all know the tired joke about the Tennessee virgin. (Right, you’ve been orbiting earth in a space shuttle for the last twenty years, OK…. Question: what’s the definition of a Tennessee virgin? Answer: any girl who can run faster than her uncles….) I might expect this from Tuscaloosa, Alabama…. But Iowa?

Well, some people must have snorted around, but it wasn’t enough. The judge got reelected, and is now still on the bench. But here’s Judgepedia again:

This case gained a second round of national attention in September 2013, following outrage over Montana judge G. Todd Baugh's sentence of a high school teacher who raped a student. Judge Baugh also suspended the defendant's prison sentence in that case--requiring him to serve 30 days in prison. Many have expressed disappointment with both the Montana and Iowa rulings, arguing that the judges were too easy on the criminals.

No remarks from Judge Steensland were found. 

No remarks were found?

Geee…I wonder why?

Our Kids on the Street

As I write this, there are four children playing in the Poetry Space of the gift shop next door. And guess what? The kids are loud, so periodically one of the parents has to come and give a directive—quiet down! That works for ten minutes, and then the crescendo begins. At some point, the other parent can abide it no longer, and will come down and reapply the directive. I, of course, am currently not attempting to squelch the noise, since these are not my kids. But I am observing the different parenting styles, and trying to assess the efficacy of each. My conclusion—both are pretty much as effective, which is to say…not very.

These kids are lucky—their parents are loving, concerned, educated. And there’s something else as well: these parents have known a lot of gay people, and if any of these kids is gay, the parent will barely blink an eye.

Now then—time for some facts:

One in every four LGBT kids who comes out to his or her parents ends up on the streets, either because she or he was kicked out, or because the child decided to leave.

The average age for kids to come out, nowadays, is fourteen. In the seventies, most people came out much later, when they were in college and relatively more stable.

Lastly, here is a paragraph from the Human Rights Campaign:

Youth homelessness in the United States is a national crisis in urban, suburban, and rural communities affecting nearly 2.8 million youth between the ages of 12 and 24. Furthermore, consistent research finds that gay and transgender youth are over-represented among homeless youth, comprising anywhere between 20 and 39 percent of the total homeless youth population even though they make up less than 10 percent of the overall youth population.

OK—my toy computer doesn’t have the calculator that my Mac does, but my feeble math skills suggest that we may have one million gay and lesbian kids on the streets. And while marriage equality and anti-bullying efforts are important—isn’t doing something for these kids important, too?

What are the problems? Well, the first is what to do with kids who are on the streets—are there beds in the shelters for them?

Answer—no. According to the clip below, called “A Day in our Shoes,” there are 3,800 homeless youth in New York alone, and 1,500 of them are LGBT. And how many beds are there for them? Two hundred.

Shelter is just one issue. A kid on the street is at major risk for drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, prostitution, and being the victim of violent crime. That kid you see sleeping after “school” on the subway? That’s the only safe—relatively—place for him to sleep. He’ll be up at five minute intervals all night, checking to make sure he’s all right.

It may be there are treatment programs which will help a kid achieve the daunting task of being an adult: paying bills on time, going to the dentist, convincing the bank to let you open a checking account even though your only ID is a high school identification card. But even those programs “age kids out,” as one of the directors in the clip “Kicked Out” put it. So at age 21 you’re supposed to be on your own—but what happens when you fall at the disco and need to go to the hospital? Ask any parent—it doesn’t stop at age 21.

Which is why Caitlin Ryan’s work at the Family Acceptance Project is so exciting. She starts with a simple premise—virtually no parent wants his or her kid on the street. No matter how terrible the parent is, or how badly drunk or addicted he or she is—no parent wants that for their kid. So the trick is to find a way to get parents to accept their gay kids.

It makes intuitive sense—families do change. Mine did, and Raf’s as well. And as you can see in the second clip below—even very macho, Hispanic families can change. And as the clip on the Family Acceptance Project website shows—the Mormons can change as well. Perhaps especially so, since the family is of huge importance in the Mormon church.

Ryan has reached out to John Kerry, who in 2011 introduced the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act. Here’s what the Human Rights Commission has to say about it:

The Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services establish a demonstration project to develop programs that are focused on improving family relationships and reducing homelessness for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. These programs must include research-based behavioral interventions designed to decrease rejecting behaviors and increase supportive behaviors in families with LGBT youth and research-based assessment tools to help identify LGBT youth at risk for family conflict or ejection from their homes. Additionally, the Secretary must provide educational tools and resources to help families identify behaviors that put LGBT youth at risk as well as provide multimedia educational tools and resources that are focused on helping a diverse range of families understand how their behavior affects LGBT youth.

And now a confession—I know that this legislation was not approved in 2011, and I think it has been reintroduced, though as of June of this year it hadn’t been. But after Googling frantically for 15 minutes, I can’t find who reintroduced it or when.

Normally, this would upset me, but nowadays I have more perspective. Not being able to chase down a reference is annoying. Being fifteen, gay, and on the streets?

That’s major!

Opening Night Gets Heated

It was, apparently, a noisy night at the opera.

I pondered in this blog several weeks ago whether I should sign an online petition asking the Metropolitan Opera House to dedicate its opening night—a more-champagne-than-beer night out—to the cause of LGBT rights.

There were good reasons to sign the petition. First of all, Anna Netrebko, the Russian-Austrian soprano at the top of the field, and Valery Gergiev, the Russian conductor, were singing and conducting. And both, to some degree, were supporters or perhaps friends with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president who signed into law draconian laws against even speaking about homosexuality. More to the point, neither artist had condemned these laws. Oh, and the opera to be performed on opening night? Eugene Onegin, by that most lavender composer, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.

There were good reasons not to sign the petition. First of all, it was mere coincidence that the two Russian artists were appearing in a gay Russian composer’s opera that opening night; the Met was hardly endorsing or even acquiescing to homophobia. Second, the opening was in New York, not in Moscow—the Russians weren’t making any money off this one. Third, the Met has never endorsed any cause in its 130 year-plus history. And, look guys, we’re not the only game in town. In the last 130 years, there have been a LOT of atrocities. The Met could have devoted every performance to a different cause, and still not be done with them….

So I didn’t sign, but 9,000 others—including Mr. Fernández—did. And yesterday evening, the opening night took place. And was Netrebko in good voice? Did Gergiev conduct with a toothpick, as he has been known to do? How was the staging, or the lighting?

Well, readers of The New York Times this morning won’t be able to tell you. What they will find is the story with the headline: Gay Rights Protest Greets Opening Night. Here’s the Times’ description of the event:

Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times
Sister Lotti Da, passing out leaflets, was among the demonstrators in front of the Metropolitan Opera on Monday.

After the lights dimmed for the Metropolitan Opera’s Russian-themed opening night gala on Monday evening, the first solo voice that rang out in the house was not of a tenor or soprano, but of a protester criticizing the recent antigay laws signed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Putin, end your war on Russian gays!” a man shouted in the vast auditorium, which was packed for the black-tie gala opening of Tchaikovsky’s “Eugene Onegin,” before turning to two of the evening’s Russian stars: Anna Netrebko, the popular Russian diva, and Valery Gergiev, the artistic director of the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg. “Anna, your silence is killing Russian gays! Valery, your silence is killing Russian gays!”

Was it true? I had looked it up, and discovered that Netrebko had issued a watery statement of support—not mentioning the laws or Putin or homosexuality, but valiantly coming out and stating that she supported equality for everybody! Wow, talk about living on the rim of the volcano! Brave move, Anna!

OK, so what about Gergiev? Here, the water is murkier; in an article from March of 2009, The New York Times said: 

“I don’t know of any case in musical history, except maybe for Wagner and mad King Ludwig of Bavaria, where a musician has been that close to a powerful ruler,” Richard Morrison, the chief classical music critic of The Times of London, told me.   

And it may be that, in Russia, you have to be a politician to be a musician. Gergiev’s passion was to rebuild the Kirov—which had a fabled history—into a glittering opera house. And to do that, he needed swagger, and the nerve to say to politicians what he said to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. Here’s The New York Times again:

Gergiev arrived with Irina Arkhipova, a great singer already advanced in years. Representing the Bolshoi, she had one overriding mission — to obtain financing for the Glinka competition for young singers.

Recalling the meeting, Gergiev emphasized his persuasive bluntness. “The prime minister had 15 minutes, in between Chechnya war meetings,” he recalled. “Arkhipova ate 10 minutes talking about the Glinka competition. She wanted $10,000. I saw that the next person was waiting outside the door for his meeting. It was my turn. I said, ‘Viktor Stepanovich, if you don’t give $10 million now to each theater, both will be lost.’ The most upset person was her. She thought she would lose her $10,000. I said, ‘You don’t know that the salaries are so pitiful that the only ones who can survive are those who work in the West.’ He said, ‘Where am I supposed to get $10 million?’ I said, ‘It’s the money you spend in one hour in Chechnya.’ He said: ‘It’s nothing to do with Chechnya. Why do you speak of it?’ I said: ‘The money disappears. It wasn’t you who built these opera houses. It is a glory of the nation. You should come see. And maybe first the Bolshoi — they are in even worse shape.’ He at some point shockingly realized that I was telling him directly and openly what was going on. We spent one hour extra there. The prime minister immediately gave $10 million together to the two houses. A very Russian story.

In the same interview, Gergiev says that Russia is a big country—you need a loud voice to be heard. And you need to get into bed with some unsavory characters, because an enemy in the Kremlin is far worse, and more powerful, than an enemy in Washington. In short, that $10 million for the Kirov—now called the Mariinsky—doesn’t get given to a guy who protests human rights abuse.

According to Anthony Tommasini, the Times’ music critic, it was not the best of nights at the opera—not the least because the director pulled out at the last minute, and was replaced by Fiona Shaw, who had never directed at the Met, and who anyway was directing elsewhere at the time.

Tommasini points out that street protests are one thing—protests within a theater another. Very true—if the protests had lasted long, the Met could have gone into overtime, and that, dear Reader, is something you don’t want to do. But the protesters left gracefully.

So let the Met off the hook on this one, guys. But the Sochi Olympics?

No frigging way….  

A Man of God and Catholicism Lite

Three men of God, three men speaking their views on gay people. Which strikes me as a bit odd—has anyone come around and asked Ricky Martin, say, or Anderson Cooper their views on religion? At any rate, we have the pope on record—he’s a sinner, he said, as we all are. And who is he to judge gay people? Here’s his quote, as it appeared in The New York Times:

In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are “socially wounded” because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro, I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” We must always consider the person.

OK—it’s a step. It’s better than Benedict, who tended to couple the word “homosexuality” with the phrase “intrinsically evil,” or the like. And we all took the bait—hey, after all those years of Ratzinger, we’re yearning for a pope who gets it, who starts moving the church forward.

And he certainly seems different—living in the guest house, driving a Ford escort, eschewing the pomp that was Benedict’s lifeblood and focusing on the poor. But how liberal is this pope? Here are his views on women, from the same interview:

I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of “female machismo,” because a woman has a different makeup than a man. But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo. Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed. The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there confused about that first sentence, and the reference to “female machismo?” I think what he’s saying is something like, “insisting that men and women are equals and should be able to hold the same positions is wrong. Women and men are intrinsically different, and no, dears, no priesthood or God forbid papacy for you!”

And am I the only one who is thoroughly sick of the church’s trotting out Mary every time women raise legitimate questions or demands? Partly because as I understand it, biblically speaking, Mary isn’t an especially likeable character—nor does she seem to figure very prominently in the life of Jesus. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject:

There is also an incident in which Jesus is sometimes interpreted as rejecting his family. "And his mother and his brothers arrived, and standing outside, they sent in a message asking for him^[Mk 3:21] ... And looking at those who sat in a circle around him, Jesus said, 'These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.'"

But all this veneration of Mary seems to come with the message: we’re perfectly happy to put you on a pedestal, but not in the priesthood. And notice as well that the pope’s “liberal” views on homosexuality don’t go that far, he hardly comes out and says, “both gay and straight people were made in God’s image, both of their loves are of equal worth, and gay people will have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals in the Catholic church, including marriage.”

Nonetheless, everybody is jumping on the bandwagon, including the Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, the Archbishop of New York. Here he is, courtesy of The New York Times:

After Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Cardinal Dolan, who has himself softened his language on homosexuality in the past year, likened the pope to the Yankees’ retiring relief pitcher: “I think he’s our Mariano Rivera. He’s a great relief to all of us.”

Ummmm, this is a guy who said the following to The New York Times during Holy Week this year:

“Well, the first thing I’d say to them is: ‘I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And — and we — we want your happiness. But — and you’re entitled to friendship,’” Cardinal Dolan said. “But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that — especially when it comes to sexual love — that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.”

Yeah? This sounds suspiciously like all those people whose views are “evolving,” and can’t we say it, at last. “Evolving” simply means not sticking your neck out until it’s absolutely imperative—failure to do so will make you look like a complete hypocrite. Great—now we know that God loves us, as well as the Cardinal, but sex with a person of the same gender is a sin.

The person who gets it? Gene Robinson, who just about caused a schism in the church, when he became the first openly gay bishop. And as you’ll see in the clip below, he doesn’t mince words: we’ve done a lot of damage to gay people, and we’re gonna have to work hard to repair the damage. There’s a reason why LGBT people are suspicious and angry. He comes out and says it to a group of Presbyterians who will be giving out glasses of water at the Gay Pride march later in the day: “You are representing the community of Christians, Jews and Muslims who are 95% of the repression we LGBT people have experienced in our lives.”

Or how about, “you are the oppressor offering the cup of water to the oppressed?” Robinson doesn’t pull the punches, or—perhaps a better image—hesitate to go into the temple and lecture to the money lenders. Nor—from the faces of the stony Presbyterians—is his message better received.

And Robinson is out there, walking the talk—passing out the cups of water to drag queens, scantily-clad boys, street performers, and the just-general-folk who drift by.

For all the talk of not focusing on abortion, homosexuality, contraception—what are we hearing? A sort of Catholicism of Nice—we won’t talk about it, we won’t judge, now come into the church but please, lower your voices, don’t rock the boat, no demands.

Congratulations—the Catholic Church has progressed to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Corporate America Buys the Statehouse

Feeling just a bit overwhelmed, lately, legislatively speaking? Beleaguered? Under attack?

If it feels like you just can’t keep on top of the constantly more right-wing, not-to-say lunatic legislation—well, there’s a reason. It’s being cranked out like Oscar Mayer cranks out the wieners. And remember the old adage—there are two things you don’t wanna know what went in to: a sausage and a legislative bill?

Well, relax—you won’t know. And why not? Because for the last forty years, a shadowy triumvirate of conservative state legislators, corporations, and think tanks have been beavering away to create more than 800 pieces of legislation, all designed to be tweaked according to state tastes, introduced as legitimate legislation, and then jammed down the throats of the people.

The organization is called ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, though it started out a bit more forthrightly as the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators. And according to Wikipedia, the group has more than 2000 sitting state legislators, or nearly a third of all state legislators.

And what does ALEC espouse? Well, let’s start with the first of three concepts at the top of the group’s website.

Limited government—of course! But mind you, this is not the old Goldwater conservatism of pay-as-you-go, the business of America is business, etc. Here’s what John Nichols, who wrote an exposé on ALEC for The Nation, said on NPR:

According to Nichols, legislation authored by ALEC has as a goal, "the advancement of an agenda that seems to be dictated at almost every turn by multinational corporations. It's to clear the way for lower taxes, less regulation, a lot of protection against lawsuits, [and] ALEC is very, very active in [the] opening up of areas via privatization for corporations to make more money, particularly in places you might not usually expect like public education."^[52] 

Hmmm—is that true? Well, here’s a copy and paste from one of the 800 pieces of model education, taken from the group’s own website:

The Charter Schools Act allows groups of citizens to seek charters from the state to create and operate innovative, outcomes-based schools. These schools would be exempt from state laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Schools are funded on a per-pupil rate, the same as public schools. Currently, Minnesota operates the most well-known program.

How very convenient! So does that mean that the school is free to teach “creation science,” and not evolution? Is geology going to be taught as starting at 4000 years before the birth of Christ? Is daily attendance at chapel going to be funded on my and your dime?

As you might expect, it gets worse; here’s Wikipedia again, with another tidbit of conservative misdoing:

Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, two of the largest for-profit prison companies in the US, have been contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Under their Criminal Justice Task Force, ALEC has developed bills which State legislators can then consult when proposing “tough on crime” initiatives including “Truth in Sentencing” and “Three Strikes” laws. Critics argue that by funding and participating in ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Forces, private prison companies directly influence legislation for tougher, longer sentences.^[38] ALEC has also worked to pass state laws to create for-profit prisons, which served as a boon to both of the aforementioned contributors.

Say whaaaa?

You’re telling me that we have these draconian laws that have one in three black males going to prison at some point in their lives—all to support a prison industry?

Seems so, for ALEC is divided into 9 task forces, and here they are:

1. Civil Justice

2. Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development

3. Communications and Technology

4. Education

5. Energy, Environment, and Agriculture

6. Health and Human Services

7. International Relations

8. Justice Performance Project

9. Tax and Fiscal Policy

Well, that does cover quite a large tract, hunh? And all of this in secret, because you won’t know where the bills are coming from. Here’s what Arizona Assistant Minority Leader Steve Farley had to say about the group:

I just want to emphasize it’s fine for corporations to be involved in the process. Corporations have the right to present their arguments, but they don’t have the right to do it secretly. They don’t have the right to lobby people and not register as lobbyists. They don’t have the right to take people away on trips, convince them of it, send them back here, and then nobody has seen what’s gone on and how that legislator had gotten that idea and where is it coming from. All I’m asking... is to make sure that all of those expenses are reported as if they are lobbying expenses and all those gifts that legislators received are reported as if they’re receiving gifts from lobbyists. So the public can find out and make up their own minds about who is influencing what.

Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Well, not according to J. B. Van Hollen, the Wisconsin State Attorney General. He has just declared Leah Vukmir, a state legislator from Wauwatosa, has immunity from turning over her record in the state’s open record standards. And why? Because when in session, the legislators have “immunity” from lawsuits requesting them to turn over records. The problem? The legislature is almost always in session.

"I think the attorney general's position is a radical misinterpretation of that (provisions that are supposed to outline a narrow measure of legislative immunity),” Susan Crawford, a Madison attorney who served as an assistant attorney general and as chief counsel to former Gov. Jim Doyle, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I've never heard a legislator asserting they're above the law, which is what (Vukmir’s) doing. You have to wonder what she's trying to hide."

Do you have to wonder what she’s trying to hide? Probably, if you want the details. But let me spell out to you the general idea:

Frustrated at the national level, corporations have overtaken the state legislatures and are secretly writing legislation that will make them richer, stifle regulation, and ruin the environment at the expense of the American people.

It’s as simple as it is cynical…..