This
World magazine column highlights the moral confusion and bankruptcy of modern society's understanding of human sexuality.
I almost started this column by saying The Guardian is a mainstream British daily newspaper and not the U.K.’s version of the National Enquirer. But that would insult the National Enquirer,
which, whatever you want to say about supermarket tabloids, was the
first to expose presidential candidate John Edwards’ dalliances when
respectable papers held their noses.
On Jan. 2 the respectable Guardian published an article,
“Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light.” The title choice is more
prophetic than intended, calling to mind Isaiah’s “Woe to those who
call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for
darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). Below are excerpts, a case study in
journalistic slouching toward Gomorrah.
“There is little agreement about paedophilia, even among those considered experts on the subject.”
Right off the bat we are introduced to the notion of different opinions,
which is Strategy No. 1. The Dark Side (Ephesians 2:2; 5:11; 6:12) need
merely suggest that something evil is really only “controversial.” When
the discussion begins at that level, the bad guys have already won
ground: Pedophilia is now put forth as a subject on which reasonable
people disagree.
Note a maneuver in 1 Kings 20, when the Israelites soundly defeat
Syrian King Ben-hadad: His servants tell him, “The kings of the house
of Israel are merciful kings. Let us put sackcloth around our waists and
ropes on our heads and go out to the king of Israel.” They do that,
asking King Ahab for mercy, and Ahab says of Ben-hadad, “He is my
brother.”
The Syrian servants who “were watching for a sign” then say,
“Yes, your brother Ben-hadad.” The purveyors of darkness are looking for
a sign from us too, for mercy unmoored to truth corrodes to leniency.
Relinquish the word “wrong,” accept the softer “reasonable difference of
opinion,” and the camel’s nose is well under the tent.
Strategy No. 2: “A paedophile is someone who has a primary or
exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile [Jimmy
Savile, high-profile English pedophile] appears to have been primarily
an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential
attraction to adolescents.”
Ephebophile is a brand new word
for me; I suspect it will become nauseatingly familiar. But the point to
notice is that now we have distinctions being proffered, a
sophisticated taxonomy. Distinctions are strategy No. 2 for
normalizing evil. The making of them automatically confers a certain
legitimacy without even having to argue for it. After all, you cannot
have varieties of something that doesn’t exist. So, circularly, if there
are varieties of sexual orientation, they are real, and if real, they
are not to be condemned.
Strategy No. 3: “Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University
of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological
studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate … is
that ‘one in five of all men are, to some degree, capable of being
sexually aroused by children. … There is a growing conviction, notably
in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct
sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent
researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary
commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010
stated baldly that paedophilia ‘is a sexual orientation.’”
“Harvard.” “U of Winchester.” “Major sociological studies.” The
canny takeaway message here: These people are smarter than you. Strategy
No. 3 is the domain of the professional.
“And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired?”
Professionals will pretend to argue about Nature versus Nurture
for another year or so, as they did in the early days of the gay
movement. Then someone will say, “You say potato and I say potahto,
let’s call the whole thing off,” and no one will care anymore.
Polymorphous promiscuity will prevail. The jig will be up.
“Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O’Carroll, a
former chairman of PIE [Paedophile Information Exchange] … that
society’s outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional,
irrational, and not justified by science. ‘It is the quality of the
relationship that matters,’ O’Carroll insists.”
The thing to notice here is that while you weren’t looking the
word “relationships” snuck in without debate. Another place gained. The
language of alternative lifestyle slowly replaces today’s more common
terminology of “abuse” and “victim.”
Sexual orientation is a recent creation in terms of human history. The
way it's bandied about today, all sexual orientations are created
equal. This column shows what moral relativism is leading -- acceptance
of pedophilia. Children are sacrificed on the altar of adult desires.
