.
Dear George,
.
It took me almost 60 years to discover and understand how religion and belief in the supernatural and deity came about. I had had an open mind on the question until then.

It has been a long, slow process endeavouring to put the jig-saw puzzle together. When I finally succeeded I was quite startled by what I saw. It was almost a physical experience. My mind cleared, my heart lightened and I experienced a profound sense of tranquility and satisfaction. I had finally understood the origins and development of the concept of the supernatural and deity beyond all reasonable doubt.

During those 60 years, I had a favourable opinion of religion and still do to a certain extent. Religion plays an important role in social cohesion and solidarity, though its force of inertia and hypocrisy in respect of moral norms and behaviour have become a major source of human tragedy.

The Australian Royal Commission on child sex abuse is the latest of a number of similar investigations carried out in various countries in respect of paedophilia practised by members of the Catholic Church over the past century. The close relationships and interdependency of the Church with politicians, governments, and the constituency are such that even the most rigorous of investigations inevitably fail to produce changes of any real significance.

The Commission's report obliges government to fire a warning shot of canonball across the bows of the Church. That is the signal for the Church to wave a couple of brochures the Vatican will have already sent it, outlining a series of innocuous reforms and procedures destined to placate public outrage. The media are invited to witness this exchange to allow parents to continue to entrust their fledglings to the clergy without any feeling of guilt.

Unlike captains of commerce and industry, politicians and media moguls, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church considers it bears no responsibility for the endemic criminal activity within its organisation. In similar situations, the former resign promptly, the latter never feels personally concerned.

They obviously do not share common moral values.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for the sincere words. I appreciate very much the fact that you address them to me (without parody, ridicule or sarcasm).

I am not going to take it sentence by sentence stating where I am of the same opinion, where not, where I think one could offer a counter argument, etc. I do not think you expect me to do that.

We all have our personal experience shaping our choice of this or that world view - theist or atheist, Christian/Catholic or antichristian/anticatholic, etc - which is OK as long as we remain open minded, and do not feel the urge to condemn or ridicule world-view perspectives that are different.

Let me just say that you mix questions of metaphysics, a sort of bridge between philosophy of science and philosophy of religion - where I think I have some insight of mine, and have written a lot about it also on this OLO - with other things only marginally related. In particular, I am no expert in law, psychology etc to write something qualified about the problem of Catholic Church and peadophilia/pederasty (neverthelss, I once got myself involved in the discussions here, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3565#85296). In this thread I only dared to ask some questions (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#247576) hoping that somebody more versed in psychology or sociology might offer an answer. As you know, nobody was interested in responding.

Let me finish with repeating that I appreciate having this insight into your inmost thinking. Maybe you will remember that some time ago I also provided you with an insight into where I was coming from, what shaped my understanding of the world.

Neither of us will live long enough to see which of these two orientations will prevail in the far away future.

.

Dear George,

.

It is nice to see you understand and that it is not just with your intelligence.

I think you will have recognized the second half of my post as the deciphered version of the parody or should I say the source of inspiration for the parody.

I hijacked Otokonoko's post for the purpose of the parody as a virus invades a human cell and uses it to form an invading army. The parody was not directed against Otokonoko. His post was simply the framework which allowed me to construct the parody - the rearrangement of an existing architecture - producing a new form and conferring on it a totally different sense.

Naturally, opinions may differ from those expressed in the parody, not only yours, but mine also. As you rightly suggest, many perfectly valid counter arguments are possible. I am sure we could both find several.

How could I possibly forget that interesting insight you gave to your own life experiences? Of course they shaped your understanding of the world. Though, with time and experience, you may manage to see them through one or two of your other "lenses", or perhaps, if you line them up in parallel, through all three at once.

I think you, too, will recall that I indicated, some time back, that I see OLO as a laboratory in which I may experiment ideas and opinions. I come here with my blocks of Carrara marble hoping that a Michelangelo (such as yourself) might chip off the rough edges and produce a David or a Pieta.

To complete the picture, my religious family is the Church of England, a branch of the Catholic genealogical tree. I have been branded as a member of that fold, but also have sympathies for the social work of The Salvation Army and the philosophy of Buddhism. I do not adhere to any religious dogma nor practice any religious rites or ceremonies.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time but intend to do my best to address the two links you indicated, in a subsequent post.

.

>>Does the same apply to the difference between “soft” (the child a “willing” partner) and “hard” (violent) pedophilia?<<

There is no such thing as 'soft' pedophilia George: children cannot give informed consent.

>>Does a “soft” only pedophilia experience of a child/minor leave lasting effects on the victim (as the “hard” version obviously does)?<<

No, because 'soft' only pedophilia is in the unicorns and honest politicians category: the non-existent category. Since they're all 'hard' they all scar the victims to some degree.

>>Or is "soft" pedophilia just a victimless "orientation" like homosexuality?<<

No. It's a fiction invented by groups like NAMBLA:

http://www.nambla.org/

Trying to get society to decriminalize an activity which we know to have devastating effects on the victims. Thankfully I can't see them having much luck because you don't need much common sense to see that children don't have the capacity to give consent.

>>Would decriminalization (or even encouragement as in the quote above) of "soft" pedophilia lead to an increase in the occurance of its “hard” form?<<

Yes. See above point about all occurrences of pedophilia being occurrences of 'hard' pedophilia.

Cheers,

Tony

Mostly because it seems initially counterintuitive, number 8 on the list of the top 10 most psychopathic professions from 'The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What saints, spies and serial killers can teach us about success' by Professor Kevin Dutton (Research psychologist and honorary affiliated member of the Calleva Research Centre for Evolution and Human Sciences, Magdalen College, University of Oxford), caught my eye:

1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (TV/radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police officer
8. Clergyperson
9. Chef
10. Civil servant

According to the dictionary definition, a psychopath is a person with amoral or antisocial behaviour, someone who displays egocentricity, or a person who lacks empathy and the ability to establish meaningful personal relationships.

Tony Lavis,

Thanks for your answers. Of course, I agree with what you wrote. The point I was trying to make was that whatever excuses could be found for pedophile inclinations, they do not apply to the person who boasts about them or wants pedophilia to be decriminalized, since these things could hardly be explained as some “orientation” given in the person’s genes. Compared to pedophile priests, as abhorrent as their actions were, they never boasted about them (thus indirectly exonerating, even encouraging, others).

Today, of course, Cohn-Bendit and other Europeans of the "generations 68" are backpedalling.