More Friday Male Beauty

Indicted Philadelphia Monsignor Now Pointing Finger at Superiors

It appears that things might get interesting in the pending criminal prosecution of a Philadelphia monsignor and other priests relating to the sexual abuse of children and youth by predator priests. It seems that the good monsignor doesn't want to fall on his sword and protect the more senior members of the Catholic Church hierarchy whom he says were giving him orders. Frankly, it is inconceivable that the bishops and archbishop of the archdioceses were not fully involved in the cover ups and failures to report. One can only hope that Monsignor Lynn spills his guts and implicates his superiors. As it is, the archdioceses has already been named an unindicted co-conspirator. It would be great fun to see that status change to that of an indicted co-conspirator. Here are highlights on developments from the Delaware County Daily Times:

An indicted Catholic church official is showing signs he won't take the fall alone for the priest abuse scandal in Philadelphia, with his lawyer saying Wednesday that a successor threw him "under the bus."

Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the only official from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia facing trial for allegedly failing to remove accused predators from the priesthood. He served as secretary of clergy from 1992 to 2004. Defense lawyers argue that Lynn took orders from then-Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and other superiors in the church hierarchy.

Prosecutors hope to include dozens of old abuse allegations to show a pattern of conduct at the trial, which is scheduled to start in late March and last several months. One such case involves a West Chester University chaplain accused in 1994 of taking pictures of students in their underwear. He next became chaplain of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, worked with a parish youth group and later admitted taking boys on overnight trips, one to Jamaica, before retiring to the New Jersey shore, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors call the archdiocese "an unindicted co-conspirator" in the case. A 2005 grand jury report blasted Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, for their handling of abuse complaints, but they were never charged. Bevilacqua is now 88 and in failing health.

A judge will hear more arguments Monday on whether 27 of the 63 priests described in that grand jury report can be referenced at Lynn's trial. Prosecutors want to show that Lynn kept them on the job despite knowing of complaints stored in "secret archives" at the archdiocese. Continued...

They have detailed the cases over a three-day pretrial hearing this week. The cases include a priest who allegedly pinned loincloths on naked boys playing Jesus in a Passion play, and whipped them, in keeping with the drama; a priest who held what prosecutors called "masturbation camps" at the rectory, having boys strip naked and teaching them to masturbate; and a pastor written up for disobedience for complaining to Bevilacqua about an accused priest being transferred to his parish.

Defense lawyers hope to limit the trial evidence to Lynn's handling of the priest and ex-priest on trial with him. The Rev. James Brennan, 48, and defrocked priest Edward Avery, 69, are charged with rape. All have denied the charges. The archdiocese declined to respond to the comments made Wednesday about Monsignor Senior, citing a gag order in the case.

Let's face it. Most of the Catholic Church hierarchy is cesspool filled with morally bankrupt hypocrites who cared nothing for the lives of children and youths subjected to sexual abuse. Worse yet, legislators in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey are allowing the affiliates of these foul individuals to claim that allowing normal, loving same sex couples CIVIL marriage rights threatens humanity. It's disgusting.

Study: Low IQ Correlates With Prejudice and Bigotry

I've often wondered how Christianists and the Tea Party crowd can cling to beliefs that defy logic and scientific fact. Now, we may have the answer: they're simply stupid. I mean literally dumb from an intelligence perspective. A new study done by researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, finds that those with low intelligence gravitate towards conservatism and are prone to embrace prejudice of things they don't understand or that are different. I can already hear Tony Perkins and the anti-gay professional Christian set howling and bellowing that Hodson's work is biased or slanted. When you think of about, however, the correlation tracks with a great deal of everyday experience in dealing with people. If you can't think for yourself, you're an easy target for demagogues who like to blame problems and failings on "the other." Here are some highlights from Yahoo News on the study findings:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice . . .

The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions . . .

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. . . . As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias. People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link.

Interestingly, this study would seem to affirms some prior reports that found that evangelical Christians had lower IQ's and lower levels of education than denominations such as Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

The GOP Circular Firing Squad Continues

The latest debate among the occupants of the GOP presidential nominee clown car went down last night and by most accounts Newt Gingrich bombed and made Romney look good. Personally, I want to see both Gingrich and Santorum driven from the race for the simple reason that we don't want such insanity given any more credibility than these two nut cases have already wrongly received. That's not to say that I like Romney because the man will say anything to further his election chances, but at least he's not certifiably mentally disturbed - even if he has participated in "posthumous Mormon baptisms" if not "recently." A column in the Washington Post seems to compile the consensus on last night's debate. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich got slammed in the debate by a remarkably invigorated Mitt Romney, an impressive Rick Santorum and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who really wouldn’t let him get away with much.

Romney was clearly on his game, ready to swat down Gingrich. He vigorously defended his success in business and skewered Gingrich on his carping about his capital gains. He tied Gingrich to Freddie Mac and wouldn’t let go, making it clear that Gingrich was a cheerleader for the entity that contributed mightily to the financial crisis. When Gingrich accused him of investing in Freddie, Romney pointed out that they both had investments in mutual funds which held Freddie bonds. On Gingrich’s loony moon colony, he was restrained but emphatic that this was fiscally irresponsible.

He did get slightly tangled up by an ad citing Gignrich for calling Spanish the language of the “ghetto,” saying he didn’t know if it was his ad. When Blitzer later confirmed that it was, however, Romney cornered Gingrich, whose defense boiled down to: I didn’t say the word “Spanish.” The Romney team quickly put out its research form Politifact showing that Romney’s ad was “mostly true.” More impressively, he faced down Gingrich for calling him anti-immigrant in a radio ad, reminding the audience that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had rebuked Gingrich and forced the former Speaker to take down the ad. For once, Gingrich looked dumbfounded.

Gingrich had a perfectly dreadful night, appearing angry and then sheepish, nasty and then defensive. He didn’t have well-prepared defenses on his time with Freddie or strong attacks on Romney’s earnings. He played to type in defending his fantastical idea for a space colony. And he sniped at conservatives who have come forward to question whether he was all that close to Reagan . . . Conservatives have had enough of him, and have come forward out of fear he might actually get the nomination. After tonight they have less to fear. Not only did Romney have the best debate of the primary season, but Santorum’s strong showing should bleed votes away from Gingrich as well.

Finally, Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job, rebuffing Gingrich’s attempt to duck away from a question on his anti-capital gains language. He kept the proceedings lively and substantive.

A NARTH Versus Exodus Internationl Cat Fight

Among the many, many fraudulent things that the Christian Right peddles to the unwary and ignorant, one of the worse in my opinion, is the knowingly untrue claim that through so-called reparative therapy gays and lesbians can become straight. Literally none of the legitimate medical and mental health associations - i.e., the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers - support the validity of reparative therapy. The sole purpose for the continued marketing of reparative therapy by the far right, in my view, boils down to two things: (1) duping the public into believing that gays can change and, therefore, deserve no legal rights or protections, and (2) money - desperate individuals and parents brainwashed with false religious belief can be shaken down for lots of money.

Now, a cat fight if you will has broken out between the National Association for the Research and Therapy (NARTH) and Exodus International, heretofore one of the biggest marketers of the "ex-gay" myth. Why one might ask? Because Exodus is distancing itself from the claim that gays can actually change their sexual orientation - a lie that Exodus has been marketing for at least two decades. Warren Throckmorton looks at the cat fight and the almost laughable defense put up by NARTH even as it admits that "change" doesn't eliminate attraction and desire for those of the same sex. Reparative therapy is and always has been a cold, calculating lie. Here are highlights from Warren's post:

Until recently, Exodus sold reparative therapy books in their bookstore but recently removed them. Also, Alan Chambers recently told an audience at the Gay Christian Network conference that

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.

I asked Alan Chambers about the reason for the removal of the reparative therapy books and he told me that Exodus wants to be clear that Christian discipleship is how they want to be known.

Apparently, these developments are troubling to NARTH leaders. One of them, David Pickup, recently penned an article at the Anglican Mainstream in defense of reparative therapy. He wrote the article in direct response to the comments by Alan Chambers, noted above. Pickup writes:

Chambers’ remarks essentially indicate that:

1. Exodus will no longer indicate or specifically claim that change from Gay to 100% straight is possible for anyone except for a few rare cases.

2. Exodus has apologized and will continue to do so for making these unrealistic claims, which they now believe have contributed toward misinformation, hurtfulness and homophobia.

3. Exodus will work to achieve a deeper understanding of the truth of homosexuality, which will allow them to minister more effectively and compassionately to those dealing with homosexuality.

Pickup then offers his slant on why change in orientation should be recognized even if a same-sex attracted person is still same-sex attracted after they say they have changed:

Let’s take other challenges common to many people: depression or anxiety for instance. How many people who have successfully dealt with these issues are 100% changed so that they are not susceptible to later feelings of depression or anxiety? Can a therapist guarantee a client will never have those feelings again? Of course not. The same is true for homosexuality. Real change has occurred; however, no apologies should be made if much successful change has occurred even though homosexual feelings occasionally surface.

Alan [Chambers] seems to want to extract himself from this semantic debate by sticking to experience – the vast majority of people he knows retain attractions to the same sex. Pickup wants to explain that away by making sexual attraction analogous to depression or anxiety. Since he sees same-sex attraction as a disorder which stems from childhood wounds, that may work for him, but it won’t work for those who do not see it that way.

One problem here is political. NARTH wants to be able to say SSA people have changed if they experience a reduction in awareness of SSA and perhaps an experience of opposite sex attraction. This is a kind of change and if left in the therapeutic context, . . . . However, NARTH does not stay in the therapeutic context. They provide support for political groups who want change to mean complete change from gay to straight. Change is such a volatile concept because a modicum of change in the therapeutic setting is then exaggerated in the political and legal settings to argue against same-sex attraction as something intrinsic to the vast majority of people who experience it.

I think Chambers is much more on the right track than Pickup. Although Exodus continues to refer to reparative therapists and there are member ministries that are quite reparative in their approach, I think a move toward ministry and honesty about what people can expect is valuable.

This debate IS important because right now as the marriage equality legislation is working its way through the New Jersey legislature, the New Jersey Family Policy Council is busy marketing the ex-gay myth to members of the legislature. As noted before, no one lies more than the "godly Christian" set. They make a very strong case that one's best course is to walk away from Christianity entirely.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Wings - The Original Broke Back Mountain?

Among the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar this year is the silent movie, The Artist. A film critic at Towleroad has described this year's Academy Award nominees overall as a Hollywood nostalgia fest. Which ultimately leads him to brings up the subject of the winner of the first best picture Academy Award, the 1927 movie Wings that involves two World War I fliers. I remember seeing the movie a number of years ago and it definitely has its homoerotic moments such as in the clip below which captures what was most likely the first same sex movie kiss:

Pretty passionate if you ask me and filled with angst and a feeling of lost love. The reviewer had this to say:

If you've never seen it, it's totally worth a look and not just for the gorgeous flyboys. Charles "Buddy" Rogers and Richard Arlen play Jack and David, two fighter pilots who are initially at odds. In one early military training scene they're constantly giving each other the eye. Their drill master calls them "powder puff guys" -- I'm not making this up -- and then they proceed to beat the shit out of each other. Jack regularly has David flat on his back but David won't give up. Finally Jack stops and smiles.

"Boy you're game!" he says in a title card and just like that they're besties, tenderly wiping blood from mouths (with boxing gloves still on). It's all macho ridiculous and incredibly hot if you ask me. Their super tight friendship, threatened by sharing the same love ("It" girl Clara Bow), finally leads to one of the most famous embraces in early cinema: