Boston | Catholic Church | Education | Gay Parents | News

BigGayDeal.com

Catholic Professor's Column Alleging Children of Gays Would Bring Porn to School Generates Firestorm

A June 4 column by Catholic professor Michael Pakaluk in The Pilot, the official paper of the Archdiocese of Boston, inspired a firestorm of controversy this week for asserting that children of gay parents should not be allowed to attend Catholic schools because of the things they would bring to it.

Pakaluk  Wrote Pakaluk: "The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household."

Pakaluk also wrote that the parents might volunteer to read for the class and advocate gay rights or discuss their "lifestyle" while doing so. 

The Boston Globe reports:

"In the column, published last week, the writer argued that one reason the children of gay parents should not be admitted to Catholic schools is the 'real danger' that they would bring pornography to school. That allegation, plus several others in the column, has drawn a torrent of criticism from gay rights advocates...The controversy began June 4, when The Pilot published a column by Michael Pakaluk, a former philosophy professor at Clark University in Worcester and former visiting scholar at Harvard who now teaches in Virginia. Pakaluk was reflecting on another controversy, regarding the decision by a Hingham priest to rescind the acceptance of a child of a lesbian couple to a local parochial school...In the column, Pakaluk wrote that pornographic items 'go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which — as not being related to procreation — is inherently eroticized and pornographic.' In a phone interview yesterday, however, Pakaluk said he now views that sentence as a 'weak argument.' 'I think I probably would not make that point again, and I can see how it would be offensive,' he said."

Said The Pilot's editor on Wednesday in a statement: “The tone of the piece was strong, and we apologize if anyone felt offended by it.’’

Pakaluk stood by other parts of the column: "He said that what gay Catholics and their supporters believe is 'on a major collision course' with Catholic teaching that sexual relations should only take place within a heterosexual marriage, that opposite-sex partners in marriage represent the image of God, and that a mother and father make “distinct and complementary’’ contributions toward raising a child."

Marianne Duddy-Burke of the gay Catholic group DignityUSA and GLAAD's Jarrett Barrios, a Catholic himself, both condemned Pakaluk's column.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Professor, my ass. This prikk is dealing with subjects completely outside of his field of expertise. He is spouting homophobia from behind the skirts of his academic credentials, and the rag that published his hate filled spew is just as responsible for the bigotry. Why a homosexual's child would be any more prone to discuss his/her parents' "lifestyle" than a heterosexuals is a mystery to me.

    As a footnote, any gay person who is self-hating enough to send a child to a Catholic indoctrination center deserve this B.S.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Jun 11, 2010 8:43:27 AM


  2. I said it before I'm starting to believe that "God" no longer believes in Catholics. Time to move on, and start again.

    Posted by: Lez | Jun 11, 2010 8:57:16 AM


  3. I went to Catholic school so I surely know better than to send my kid there. WTF.

    Posted by: Russell | Jun 11, 2010 9:04:09 AM


  4. Once again, "BIG RELIGION" like "BIG OIL", "BIG BANKS", etc. knows what's best for America -- NOT! When are these pompous asses going to get over themselves - seriously? BTW, does this so-called professor REALLY think gays and lesbians are the only humans who don't have sex for the sole purpose of procreation OR might have some porn in their home? Jeez, these nutcases truly know how to stretch reality to create their bigoted sense of Christianity.

    Posted by: Rob | Jun 11, 2010 9:27:28 AM


  5. Timing his ridiculous comments to coincide with the Pope begging for forgiveness for generations of child abuse is classic. Tragic, of course, but classic.

    Posted by: Sane Soul | Jun 11, 2010 9:36:50 AM


  6. He should be more worried about what the priests would be bringing in to the church and schools.

    Posted by: Jim | Jun 11, 2010 9:42:57 AM


  7. a PHILOSOPHY professor outgassed those ideas? Where did he get his degree, at the Westboro Mail Order University?
    Seriously, if a legitimate university can reward such an ignorant cretin with an advanced degree in philosophy, it proves that the US educational system is in trouble....

    Posted by: greggo | Jun 11, 2010 10:04:46 AM


  8. "that opposite-sex partners in marriage represent the image of God..." Huh? Since when do Catholics worship God the Father and God the Mother? The church only elevated Mary to the veneration she's held in when it became apparent that the masses were refusing to give up their worship of a mother goddess.

    Posted by: margueritegautier | Jun 11, 2010 10:06:36 AM


  9. I know this is bitchy and shallow, but...has anybody else noted that a large number of homophobic men have pursy little mouths. think of Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps and on and on.

    Posted by: gregorybrown | Jun 11, 2010 10:15:07 AM


  10. Unbelievable. This guy has his PhD from Harvard, and is considered 'one of the world's leading experts on Aristotelian ethics'.

    Posted by: Andrew F | Jun 11, 2010 10:17:59 AM


  11. Because it's the priests' job to expose the children to pornography in a manner where they'd get first hand experience, right?

    Posted by: jmatts | Jun 11, 2010 10:31:01 AM


  12. As the gay parent of two children, I would like to say that Michael Pakaluk should never be allowed to speak to any children. As we all know pedophiles are predominately straight men. Usually straight men with sexual hang-ups, so following that logic, Mr. Pakaluk should never be around any children because we don't know if he or his kind might expose themselves to children or try to lure them into cars. People like Mr. Pakaluk, those who tend towards trying to ostricize or belittle gay men and women, especially gay parents, have been found time and time again to have very, very dark secrets of their own, thus not making them qualified to be around any child or teen-ager. Mr. Pakaluk and his ilk are sometimes found to be self-loathing and dangerous, not the kinds of role models any parents wants for their children. And as a defender of Catholocism, a religion plagued by inappropriate behavior with children, I would also suggest that Mr. Pakaluk and his kind not be put in a postion where he could hurt another child physically, emotionally or mentally.

    How's my logic, Mr. Pakaluk? Clearly as sound as yours. After reading your ignorant and disgusting remarks, as a gay man who is a father (and a man who believe in Jesus Christ,) I only wish I was close enough to you to punch you in the mouth. Clueless as you are to who I am, for you to make such outlandish and ridiculous assumptions only leads me to believe that it's not the focus of your article that has a problem, it's the author who is clearly in question with both his truth, his morals and his God. You seem to know nothing about the very God you supposidly serve but considering the state of the Chruch you ignorantly try to protect from a non-threat (children of gay men and women) I am not surprised.

    I would defy Mr. Palaluk to offer ANY evidence to theories. Please, Mr. Palaluk, serve up all the cases where the children of gay men and woman have brought pornography to any school, much less to a Catholic school. I will add that the ratio of children of straight parents who have done it is ridiculously higher than those of gay parents. Where's my evidence...well, clearly when you're dealing with your and your publication you don't need it. Making up lies is so much easier for weaselly people and the businesses that print their disgust.

    Bottom line, for a man with such an education, who has taught as such prestigeous schools, you're a sad, lying, disgusting idiot. And if you have kids, Mr. Pakaluk,and I hope for their sake you don't, I'll put my parenting skills up against your bigotry any day of the week.

    Posted by: Bart | Jun 11, 2010 10:33:44 AM


  13. His late wife was also the notorious "pro-life zealot" Ruth Pakaluk, who passed away in 1998; both members of Opus Dei. Professor Pakaluk also has some interesting views about the death penalty, saying "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins."

    Pakaluk has been spouting his anti-gay, anti-choice sentiment for years. Simple google searches are turning up lots of juicy articles!

    http://opusdeitoday.org/2010/04/ruth-pakaluk-a-zealous-apostle-in-massachusetts/
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/OPUSLIFE.TXT
    http://romancleric.blogspot.com/2007/07/surprise-you-are-now-bigot.html

    Posted by: Andrew F | Jun 11, 2010 10:43:14 AM


  14. Oh, where to start . . . as if straight families have NO porn in their houses. (Aren't fundamentalists the greatest porn consumers in the world?) Only gay families have porn, and only children of gay parents would think, Hey, let's bring in Mommy's lesbian porn or Daddy's leatherboy magazine to show teacher! What a moron.

    The rest of his essay--the part he stands by, apparently--is filled with implausible hypotheticals that only call into question his ability to raise children since intolerant, gay-sex-obsessed fear-mongers will probably warp their children's minds long before gay parents get anywhere near the little darlings.

    It does boggle the mind why any gay parent in, for instance, MA would choose a Catholic school for their child, however "good" they think the school is. These same parents can be married and viewed as completely equal citizens by the state, and yet in the eyes of the Catholic Church (the same Church that ignores sexual crimes against children by their priests decade after decade) they are nothing but sinners forcing a deviant lifestyle on their children. Wake up, gay parents!

    Finally, can we officially declare that apologies that apologize only for causing offense, rather than for the ignorance that caused offense, are the opposite of apologies.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 11, 2010 11:03:06 AM


  15. Regarding CANDIDINNC's comment "As a footnote, any gay person who is self-hating enough to send a child to a Catholic indoctrination center deserve this B.S." and RUSSELL's comment "I went to Catholic school so I surely know better than to send my kid there."

    Certainly I can't be the only self-respecting gay man who had a positive experience attending a Catholic school. The faculty and staff at my high school were excellent. Not only were they supportive of me personally, they were supportive of a larger community that would not have tolerated the abuses I know my gay peers who attended public schools suffered. Furthermore, I know the education I received there was second to none.

    I absolutely would want my child to attend that excellent Catholic high school.

    Posted by: Charlie B. | Jun 11, 2010 11:04:47 AM


  16. Aren't the nice Catholic kids the ones who bring their eroticized guns to school?

    Posted by: HW In SoCal | Jun 11, 2010 11:24:10 AM


  17. The danger for children at Catholic schools that would most concern me is the danger of being raped by priests and faculty.

    Posted by: John | Jun 11, 2010 11:42:50 AM


  18. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS OVER!!!IT HAS NO MORAL AUTHORITY!!!!!!NASTY ASS PEOPLE WHO PREY ON CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: sal | Jun 11, 2010 12:07:20 PM


  19. ...its creepy that they STILL have access to children to "educate" them.NASTTYYYYYYY

    Posted by: sal | Jun 11, 2010 12:08:53 PM


  20. To think this idiot is teaching anyone is a crime.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Jun 11, 2010 12:22:11 PM


  21. Most remaining Catholic schools are just private schools that offer havens for racial segregation. There are no more nuns to staff them. Priests are few and far between and not to be trusted. Lots of places have really bad public schools where children are in real danger and will not be educated, so like our U.S. Presidents sometimes a private school is the only choice. As regards the professor, surely he's angling for a promotion or grant -- so many of our academics are servants of power. Who knows he may wind up in the Palin cabinet.

    Posted by: Interested Bystander | Jun 11, 2010 12:27:30 PM


  22. Hate peddling republican trash. Period.

    Posted by: Chad | Jun 11, 2010 12:34:19 PM


  23. I love when anti-gay asshats use the argument that sex is more pornographic and eroticised for homosexuals, because the purpose of it isn't for procreation. Because every time straight people have sex, they're trying to get pregnant. That's why birth control pills, sponges, and IUDs are so popular. And what about straight women who can't have children, or like me, don't want them? Are our sex lives questionable and pornographic too? I know he argued that that sentence was a weak argument, but it was the basis for everything else he said, so....

    These idiots don't seem to realize that if you use the "no procreation" test to determine who is a deviant and who isn't, you're demonizing everyone who chooses not to be a parent, everyone with reproductive issues and everyone who chooses to adopt rather than have their own child. Frakking Harvard gave this guy a Ph.D?

    Posted by: Nicole | Jun 11, 2010 12:34:36 PM


  24. I have known many grads from Harvard and Princeton over the years and many of them are genuine dolts. This man is no exception. I present for your consideration the "philosophy" professor (you can't make this stuff up!) who argues that the CHILDREN OF GAYS should not be allowed in Catholic schools because THEIR PARENTS live a lifestyle that is NON-PROCREATIVE.... you got that, the PARENTS are NON-PROCREATIVE. And so logically these children will bring pornography to school. Hilarious if weren't for the inexplicable (other than hatred) clout that these people have!

    Posted by: dan cobbbb | Jun 11, 2010 2:16:39 PM


  25. This guy's fear is way misplaced. He's afraid of the "show-and-tell" from hell. It's far far more likely that a child will be raped by a priest, than for a child to be sent to catholic school with dildos and porn in his lunchbox.

    Posted by: Trailrunnr | Jun 11, 2010 2:26:34 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Pope Begs for Forgiveness from God for Clergy Sex Abuse« «