Life in Different Perspectives

Last night I was thinking about how different the reality is from what we see from the perspective of a third person, and came to the uncanny conclusion that it is really two different versions of the same theory. The other day, while travelling to my home town in a train, I wondered how the cities, which I had much acquaintance, seem so different from the perspective of a railway station. The slums which always seem to come even before you see the horizon of dusky city sky, always convey to me, the unimaginable hardships faced by the inhabitants, who, perhaps were the victims of this materialistic society. Still, I have no sympathies for them. Why you ask? Because they themselves are to blame. Leaving their house in the villages and migrating to the cities in hope of striking gold is not what we normally expect to click. Excuse me from deviating from the topic of my story, which may sometime become a pain for the reader, but do bear with me, because I have this habit of explaining anything and everything pertaining to the topic, even if the connection is as mild as the candle flame in a gale. So, when we see such scenes from the train, we begin to wonder what would the city life would be like. But it appears that in India, every station has the same story. People loitering near the track, expending their life in search for a better living condition, and eventually landing in the ever expanding web of the failed fate. Walking down the streets of the cities which I had visited, I never remember seeing such sights, so much concentration of poverty in so little place, barring one or two metros including Mumbai and Delhi.

Reflecting all these things, you start to question why you see what you see? Fairly simple to answer. You see whatever you want to. The difference is only where you want to see it. Life is there, both in the cities, as well as near the railway track.

So, the next time you see a kid running without any clothes, looking somewhat dirty, running after the train, waving you goodbye, remember the time when you are preparing for a bath…you too are filthy and naked. Its just that you enjoy your privacy, and they don't have one. 

Blaming Gays for Pederasts and Paedophiles: is it correct ?

It is not the homosexually-inclined priest who is at risk of abusing: almost all gay priests lead healthy celibate lives. The ones who are most at risk of abusing are emotionally stunted men whose psychosexual development has gone awry.

That does not make them paedophiles. Only a handful of clerical abusers have been authentic paedophiles, seeking out pre-pubescent children (male or female; paedophiles don't usually care) as victims. Those that there have been have had a very large number of victims and have wreaked havoc.

But most accused priests fall into a different category. Almost all the accused are alleged to have molested one minor (only three per cent of the accused in the John Jay study had more than ten alleged victims); the classic perpetrator was a priest in his thirties who spent some time, mostly less than a year, sexually involved with a boy in his early teens. That boy has usually been someone who has had his boundaries violated early in life, probably by a relative.

Are those priests paedophiles? No – although the damage they cause is considerable. Are they homosexual? Possibly – but not healthy ones. And to claim that their homosexuality is a cause of their abusing is as daft as suggesting that paedophilia is linked to heterosexuality. Cardinal Bertone should be more prudent.