English

OLAVO DE CARVALHO

Jornal da Tarde, May 09, 2002

Translated by Maria Inês P. de Carvalho

The current tide of attacks on Catholic clergy is entirely grounded on a very few cases of pedophilia, registered along more than ten years in several countries. But recurring repetitions of the same old news create an association between pedophilia and Catholicism in the soul of the public, and such identification is even more reinforced by supposedly qualified opinions suggesting the bond between the phenomena and clerical celibacy.

To those whose thinking is based upon stereotypes and clichés, the news are truly astonishing, and the image it conveys is surprisingly convincing.

Let us admit: those who are apt to reason with facts and numbers constitute a trifling minority. But for such minority it is crystal clear that the accusations say the exact opposite of what they will; for what they really show it that pedophilia is less frequent among catholic fathers than among members of any social group we may choose by way of comparison.

As a sample, let me pick two of the major beneficiaries with the church demoralization: on the one hand, gays; on the other hand, the international bureaucracy that today substitutes the clergy in the mission of watching over the childhood welfare.

A recent study by Judith Reisman, the celebrated author of Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, shows that the chances of child harassment by male homosexuals are five times greater than those of male heteros commiting such crimes. In short, homosexual pedophiles are much more relapsing.

Furthermore, among the victims of male pedophiles, there are 20 boys for each girl.

If even such a significant statistic constant doesn’t justify a worldwide stream of anti-gay alarmism, then why would a laughable set of ten cases, carefully clipped by the media, justify the worldwide anti-Catholic prevention?

But even further, when it comes to gays, there’s not a mere statistic constant: there’s the brute fact of induction to pedophilia by representative gay magazines.

In his work “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, soon to be published by Regent University Law Review – though the reviews circulate on the web already -, jurist Steve Baldwin reveals some discoveries he made in the gay bibliography available in the market. Observe these three, randomly gathered from the showcase:

1. Journal of Homosexuality, a prestigious pro-gay publication, published a whole special issue under the grotesquely euphemistical title of “Inter-generational Male Intimacy”, whereon several articles presented pedophilia as a “love relationship”

2. Larry Elder, founder and head of an activist gay group, wrote in his book Report from the Holocaust: “In that cases of childs having sex with older homosexuals, I affirm that frequently, very frequently, the child desires the act and maybe even claims for it” (non-literal translation)

3. The Advocate, one of the most influential gay magazines, regularly advertises a rubber doll, model “Penetrable Boy… available in three teasing positions”!

But saying that the gay community is the pedophiles per capita record-holder would be unfair. For such cup, meanwhile at least, seems to pertain to those ‘saviours’ who took upon the duty of watching over the protection and moral education of the children of the world: the United Nation social workers.

Data of the entity’s general secretary herself give us notice of the fact that, solely in the year of 2001, the number of complaints presented by eastern Africa refugees against those multinational child teasers reached 400. And four hundred episodes in a single year, in a single community, shape – unequivocably I guess – a case of mass pedophilia. And with the repugnant detail that the victims haven’t been gathered in the streets or schools, but among starving and ailing people, the miserable masses, who, in extreme despair, have surrendered in the hands of these monsters, relying innocently on their help promise.

This is a real scandal of worldwide proportions, a crime against Humanity in the most strict sense Nuremberg has defined the expression.

But UN social workers are untouchable. They’re the new clergy, encharged of spreading the “politically correct” gospel of tomorrow’s Humanity throughout the world. To denounce them would be to promote the immediate miscarriage of that so-called “humanist” ideology that inspires all international media assaults on Catholic priesthood.

That is why the world press keeps silent, dissuading the public’s attention to selectively chosen instances where the word “priest” figures as a crime emblem.

After all, doesn’t the Church, just as Christ himself, exist to take away the world’s sins?

OLAVO DE CARVALHO

O Globo, April 27, 2002
Translated by Assunção Medeiros
In Greece and in the Roman Empire, the use of minors for the sexual satisfaction of adults was a tolerated and even prized costume. In China, castrating young boys to sell them to rich pederasts was legitimate commerce during millennia. In the Islamic world, the rigid morals that ordain the relationships between men and women was not rarely compensated by the tolerance with homosexual pedophilia. In some countries this lasted al least until the beginning of the 20th century, making Algeria, for example, a garden of delights for depraved travelers (read the memoirs of André Gide, “Si le grain ne meurt”).

In all the places where the practice of pedophilia receded, it was the influence of Christianism — practically alone — that freed the children from this awful rule.

But this had a price. It is as if an undercurrent of hate and resentment had gone through two millennia of history, waiting for the moment of revenge. This moment has arrived.

The movement for the induction to pedophilia starts when Sigmund Freud creates an erotic parody of the first years of human life, a version that is very easily absorbed by the culture of the century. Since then, family life appears more and more, in western imagining, as a pressure cooker of repressed desires. In movies and in literature, children seem to have nothing to do but to spy on the sexual life of their parents through the keyhole, or to engage themselves in the most amazing erotic games.

The politically explosive potential of the idea is soon put in use by Wilhelm Reich, communist psychiatrist who organizes in Germany a movement for the “sexual liberation of youth”, that was afterwards transferred to the US, where it will constitute what is maybe the main idea and power behind the student rebellions of the sixties.

Meanwhile, the Kinsey Report, which today we know was a fraud all down the line, demolishes the image of respectability of the parents, showing them to the new generations either as sexually diseased hypocrites or as feigning libertines.

The advent of the birth-control pill and of condoms, which governments start to distribute happily in schools, sounds like a call for total liberation of infant-juvenile eroticism. Since then, the eroticism of childhood and adolescence expands from academic and literary circles into the culture of middle and lower classes, through an infinitude of films, TV programs, “meeting groups”, courses on family guidance, ads, you name it . Sexual education in schools becomes a direct induction of children and youth to the practice of everything they saw on the movies and on TV.

But up to that point the legitimization of pedophilia appears only in innuendo, hidden among general demands that bring it along as implicit consequence.

In 1981, however, “Time” announces that arguments pro-pedophilia are becoming popular among sexual counselors. Larry Constantine, a family therapist, proclaims that children “have the right to express themselves sexually, what means they can or cannot have sexual contact with older people”. One of the authors of the Kinsey Report, Wardell Pomeroy, pontificates that incest “can sometimes be beneficial”.

On the pretext of fighting discrimination, representants of the gay movement are authorized to teach in schools the benefits of the homosexual practice. Whoever opposes them is stigmatized, persecuted, fired. In a book praised by J. Elders, ex-secretary of health of the US (the surgeon general — that same one who makes apocalyptic warnings against smoking), the journalist Judith Levine affirms that the pedophiles are harmless and that the sexual relation of a boy with a preacher can even be a beneficial thing. Really dangerous, says Levine, are the parents, who project “their fears and their own desire for infantile flesh on that mythical molester of children”.

Feminist organizations help to disarm children against pedophiles and to arm them against the family, divulging the monstrous theory of an Argentine psychiatrist according to which at least one in every four girls is raped by her own father.

The highest consecration of pedophilia comes in a 1998 edition of the “Psychological Bulletin”, organ of the American Psychological Association. The magazine affirms that sexual abuse in infancy “does not cause intense damage in a pervasive manner”, and besides that, recommends that the term pedophilia, “charged with negative connotations”, be changed to “intergenerational intimacy”.

It would be unthinkable that such a vast mental revolution, spreading throughout society, would spare miraculously a special part of the public: priests and seminarians. In their case, added to outside pressure, there was a very special stimulus, well calculated to act from inside. In a recent book, “Goodbye, good men”, the American reporter Michael S. Rose shows that, for three decades, the gay organizations in the US have been putting their people in the psychology departments of the Seminars to make the entrance of the vocationally gifted postulants more difficult and force the massive entrance of homosexuals in the clergy. In the most important Seminars, homosexual propaganda became ostensive and heterosexual students were forced by their superiors to submit to homosexual conduct.

Cornered and sabotaged, confounded and induced, it is fatal that sooner or later many priests and seminarians end up yielding to the general infant-juvenile orgy. And, when this happens, all the spokesmen of the “liberated” modern culture, all the “progressive” establishment, all the “forward looking” media, all the powers, therefore, that along a hundred years were stripping children of their protecting aura of Christianity to give them to the lust of perverse adults, suddenly rejoice, because they found an innocent on which to lay all their blame. A hundred years of pedophile culture are all of a sudden absolved, clean, paid for before the Almighty: the only one to blame for it is… clerical celibacy! Christendom will now pay for all the evil it stopped us from doing.

Do not doubt this: the Church is now accused and humiliated because it is innocent. Its detractors accuse it because they are themselves to blame. Never before has René Girard’s theory – of the persecution of the scapegoat as an expedient for the restoring of an illusory unity of a collectivity in a crisis – found such patent, such obvious, such universal and simultaneous confirmation.

Whoever does not realize this, at this time, is divorced from his own conscience. Has eyes, but does not see, has ears but does not listen.

But the Church itself, if it – instead of denouncing them – prefers to curve itself before its attackers in a grotesque contrition act, sacrificing pro forma a few pedophile priests so as not to have to face the forces that were injected inside it like a virus, will have made its most disastrous choice of the last two thousand years.

OLAVO DE CARVALHO
Sent to Época’s newsroom in Oct. 29, 2001, for the edition of Nov. 3  – Not published

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

“We must make use of all sort of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, covers and subterfuge”, wrote Lenin in “The Left, Childhood Disease of Communism”. It is a general formula of the conduct of the left. But the immediate context clarifies even more its sense and its current validity: Lenin said these words when he was getting ready to launch NEP, the policy of opening markets that led the world to believe that socialism had lost its brutish and revolutionary vocation, disarmed western prevention and attracted to the URSS bulky foreign investments that were afterwards, naturally, taken over by force.

This was the first of an endless series of  “light” camouflages that socialism has been adopting to this day.

And Lenin would conclude: “When we have conquered the masses through a reasonable attitude, then we shall apply the offensive tactics.”

Since then it became the praxis in the communist parties to keep at the same time two lines of action, a violent and a pacifist one, a radical and a moderate, alternating its exhibition on stage according to the conveniences of the moment. Alternating also the modality of the relationship between these two lines, that can sometimes be a partnership, sometimes competition or antagonism, in a way that the movement would at times look weak and divided, and at other times united and strong. Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his book “New Lies for Old”, showed that, in Soviet politics, this last altering reflected the rhythm of progression of the revolutionary strategy, according to the advice of Sun-Tzu: “Show yourself weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak”.

This premeditated ambiguity can be personified in separate figures, which represent simultaneously the two facets of the party, like – in the state of Rio Grande do Sul – you can see in Tarso Genro and Miguel Rosetto, corresponding, mutatis mutandis, to Harlequin and Pierrot, or to Laurel and Hardy. This mechanism can also appear as the opportunistic adaptation to the changes of the historical rhythm, in such a way that the aggressive and unpleasant tactics are put aside as inadequate to the new times, without ever being, because of that, morally condemned. But it can also be manifested as ambiguity in the strict sense of the term, that is, as a double-meaning discourse. When Mr. Aloysio Nunes Ferreira Filho declares that  “he does not know” whether today he would still make use of the violent action in which he was involved in the seventies, at the same time that he praises as heroes the ones who took part in it, what he is saying is that he will return to them as soon as he feels it is the proper moment to do so.

It is not a question of morality, but of opportunity. Such is, therefore, the performance we can expect from him in the Ministry of Justice: “When we have conquered the masses through a reasonable attitude, then we shall apply offensive tactics.” The only hope that communist violence does not return to afterwards accuse as violent the reaction of its victims is that the “reasonable attitude” does not reach the desired results. And this depends on the timely decoding of each ambiguous word of Mr. Nunes Ferreira as the latent threat they are. There is also the very remote hypothesis that he becomes aware of the Leninist malice of his conduct and, with no wasting of time, repents of his own past. Repents of it not only as his past, but as a focus of infection that must be cauterized so it never gets inflamed again, in the very same and exact sense which I examine my own communist militancy, not with the nostalgia of someone that pats the head of his extinct youth, but with the realism of someone who confesses a grave moral error.

Benedetto Croce distinguished moral repentance – which condemns the act itself as intrinsically evil – from “economic repentance” – which does not abjure the act, but merely its undesirable consequences: a thief is ashamed of having robbed, another of not having been able to escape the police. Even the pure moral repentance does not guarantee the criminal will never act again. But the economic repentance is almost a guarantee of reincidence.