Aaron Gouveia takes on the author of a controversial column who claims that children of gay parents shouldn’t be allowed in Catholic schools.
Michael Pakaluk, a columnist for The Pilot newspaper (representing the Archdiocese of Boston), is taking some well-deserved heat for penning this column recently. If you don’t feel like reading it (and if you’re easily nauseated, I wouldn’t recommend it), allow me to sum it up for you:
Gay people shouldn’t be parents because they’re immoral porn addicts, and they certainly shouldn’t be in a Catholic school because their lifestyle will negatively influence the “truthful” and “moral” teachings of the almighty Catholic Church.
I knew this one would be a doozy from the first paragraph, when Pakaluk writes, “The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, ‘children of’) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools.”
So, right off the bat, Pakaluk lets us know that not only are gay parents unable to be “real” parents, but adoptive parents are inferior, too. Because environment doesn’t matter at all, and the only way to be an effective parent is to be related by blood. Got that? Good. Moving on…
Pakaluk explains that his son is a first-grader in a Catholic parochial school, and that there is one boy in his class who has two daddies. To this, Pakaluk writes, “From what I observed then, I concluded that the arrangement served neither my son nor the other students in the class.” Yet Pakaluk never says how the family structure of other students could possibly influence his child. Nor does he make clear how any of this is his goddamn business.
Pakaluk’s goes on to unleash the following gems:
“It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.”
“The second reason is that parents are rightly given access to a child’s classroom, and yet I could not trust the designs of the same-sex couple. A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly? One would expect him to be: he says he takes “pride” in his life; the school, it seems, has implicitly endorsed his role; and so why wouldn’t he speak unabashedly about his lifestyle?”
“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.”
If you have half a brain, it’s easy to see why so many people are so offended by Pakaluk’s ignorant, hateful, misguided statements. Is he actually trying to say that children of same-sex couples are somehow more prone to running across porn? And is he really claiming that gay parents who strive to take an active role in their kid’s lives are only doing it to infiltrate the minds of our nation’s young people?
At one point Pakaluk even demands that school administrators inform him of the sexual orientation of parents before they host school events at their homes, in order to avoid a homosexual haven. It’s like he believes being gay is a contagious sin, and anyone close to gay people or their children could catch it. You know, like cooties.
Did I mention this clown is actually a professor? Frightening.
All of this from someone who claims to reside on the moral high ground yet is immersed in a religion filled with priests who abuse young boys and then have it covered up by church leaders. Not surprisingly, there’s no mention of that in Pakaluk’s column.
Look, it’s no secret to anyone who knows me that I’m very much in favor of gay marriage and gay rights. I’m a proponent of equality for everyone. Yet some people still ask me why I get so worked up about this issue. After all, I’m a straight guy with seemingly no dog in this fight.
But you know what? I’m a father now. And as a dad to a 2-year-old, Will, who will soon be asking me tough questions about everything, I think parents everywhere can use this as a teachable moment. One of my favorite movies, Boondock Saints, has a fantastic quote that has stuck with me for years: “Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most. And that is the INDIFFERENCE OF GOOD MEN.”
As parents we have a responsibility to teach our kids that prejudice, hate, and injustice of any kind is not okay. But more important, we need to teach them to speak up about it. To do something. To be heard. Because standing idly by and saying/doing nothing is tantamount to condoning what’s happening. This is a lesson that can be applied to everything from the hypocrisy of not making gay marriage legal, to standing up for the kid being bullied on the playground.
Will and I won’t always agree on everything, just like my father and I don’t. But if I do my job as a dad, Will is going to grow up speaking his mind and speaking out for people being unfairly discriminated against. Even if it’s not popular, or he’s labeled a homo or a faggot simply for being a proponent for basic human rights, I want my son to be a man who does the right thing and falls on the side of compassion, tolerance, and acceptance.
Unfortunately, he’ll be battling the children of people like Mr. Pakaluk, who will no doubt have been raised with a very different moral compass.
About Aaron Gouveia
Vocalyze
Amazing article.
I loved how logical your argument was, actually based on facts and reason as opposed to just one long string of homophobic rhetorical questions.
Your last couple paragraphs were amazing, it’s how I try to live my life and definitely how I’ll try to raise my not-yet-conceived children. Oh, and LOVED the Boondock Saints reference, awesome film.
Like Gouveia, I favor gay rights including gay marriage. (After all, I’m gay.) But like Pakaluk, I see that including families with same-sex parents in a school inevitably creates the implicit message that same-sex parents are okay. Unlike Pakaluk, I think that’s a good thing. But I don’t think Pakaluk is wrong to think that. (Much of the other stuff Pakaluk says seems ignorant.)
Hey didn’t Jesus have two dads and a mother who was a virgin?
The problem with Mr. Pakaluk is not that he is a Catholic (full disclosure here, I am Catholic and was educated at a Jesuit high school and my son attends a Catholic elemetary school) but that he clearly has no understanding of basic human values and decency. Unfortunately, not uncommon in many ‘fundamentalist’ strains of most religions. This line from his article sums it up (and handily leads to the downfall of his entire position):
“Well–what would be the problem in requiring that if parents wish to enroll their children in a Catholic school, they must agree to abide by basic principles of morality?”
The basic tenet of every major religion is what we refer to as ‘the Golden Rule’ – treat others the way you wish to be treated. If every major religion – both monotheistic, polytheistic and animist – have the same rule, then it stands to reason that it is a “basic principle of morality”. Seems Mr. Pakaluk wants everyone to treat him with horror and reactionary, uninformed, unenlightened disgust.
Although I disagree on Pakaluk’s assumption that same-sex couples inherently expose children to pornography, I can understand the thinking behind his first two points. As a gay Catholic and the product of 12 years of Catholic education, I can reasonably confirm a Catholic institution’s right to withhold membership to homosexuals and their children.
For one, Catholic schools and clubs are private entities that are entitled to define their own standards of admission; the US Supreme Court case involving the Boy Scouts of America affirms that right. That may appear discriminatory, but think of other minority institutions regularly define admission and represent individuals based primarily on race, ethnicity, and/or sex, including the NAACP, ASPIRA, NOW, etc. For a Catholic school to admit children of same-sex couples, it would on some level have to contradict portions of its own teachings, namely those found in the Catechism.
Interestingly enough, the Catholic Catechism does not condemn the homosexual orientation outright; rather, it condemns homosexual acts in the same manner it condemns sex between heterosexual couples outside of marriage. Essentially, gay sex and straight, extramarital sex are equally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church, further dispelling the claim that the Church targets homosexuals for their lifestyle. The Church even concedes that the “psychological genesis [of homosexuality] remains largely unexplained “; however, I will admit that one would be hard-pressed to find any priest that would claim God makes one gay.
I can only think of one situation in which a Catholic school could appropriately admit children of a gay couple: the Catechism–nor as far as I know the Bible–does not explicitly bar a same-sex couple from raising children; the Catechism does, however, call all homosexuals to lead a life of chastity. Therefore, a Catholic school may include in their charter a provision that requires same-sex couples to sign some form of an agreement that they will faithfully abstain from sex. Unfortunately, that may violate one’s right to privacy as established in Roe v Wade, which would ultimately lead us back to the institutions banning homosexuals outright anyway.
At the end of the day, I believe the schools have the children’s best interests in mind however unfair the situation may seem. Personally, I have distanced myself from my Catholic upbringing out of respect for the Church’s tradition. I still believe in God, however I do not believe adherence to Catholicism is the best path for me.
That being said, I think that anyone is entitled to question and respectfully criticize the Catholic Church and its teachings; but simply labeling their beliefs ‘homophobic’ is not only rude, but naive. People like Pakaluk may in fact be homophobes and incorrectly justify their positions using perverted interpretations of religion. But to blacklist an entire institution based on a few crazies within it is not fair. As the saying goes: hate the player, not the game. (Politics, on the other hand, is a game we can all hate lol).
Mike H: Interestingly enough, the Catholic Catechism does not condemn the homosexual orientation outright; rather, it condemns homosexual acts in the same manner it condemns sex between heterosexual couples outside of marriage. Essentially, gay sex and straight, extramarital sex are equally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church, further dispelling the claim that the Church targets homosexuals for their lifestyle.
——————–
wrong–homosexual acts are not condemned IN THE SAME MANNER as straight sex.
Gay Sex: (ALWAYS b/c in the eyes of the church, there are to be no marriages b/w same sex)
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Straight Sex b/w Unmarried Persons
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
—————
intrinsically disorderd/grave depravity (w/o any allowance of EVER expressing physical love) i think is quite the difference b/w the church’s stance on the issue of homosexuals who are called to FOREVER remain celibate due to their inclination toward depraved and disordered acts.
I personally think it is more wrong to be a Republican. Schools should disclose the parents who vote that way so i can ensure that my kids are not in the same class as their kids. Voting Republican is morally reprehensible and I want no part in that lifestyle.
Aaron,
Great article! I loved how you highlighted: “I want my son to be a man who does the right thing and falls on the side of compassion, tolerance, and acceptance”.
As a Canadian, where gay marriage was legalized nationwide in 2005 (only the fourth country in the world), the idea of gay men and lesbian women as married partners as well as parents is just very much part of our public discourse. Increasingly, when I look south of the border, I am reminded of how relatively progressive we are on these issues. Thanks again for addressing an important issue at the Good Men Project.