Last week, the Boston Archdiocese made news when it published an editorial in its diocesan publication “The Pilot” by Michael Pakaluk, an erstwhile Clark University professor and current Professor at the fake-sounding Institute for Psychological Sciences in Arlington Virginia. The article was entitled “Children in the custody of same-sex couples in parochial schools” and was the church’s response to recent criticism it faced regarding its decision to prevent the teenage child of a same-sex couple admission to one of its Boston-area schools. 

While the Church’s behavior might surprise some people, it did not come as a shock to Massachusetts residents who have been listening to the Church make public pronouncements about what is right and wrong despite having set a record for enabling child rapists for the better part of 50 years.   

 Despite the fact that it is written in defense of the church’s indefensible stance against the children of homosexuals, Pakaluk’s piece is worth reading because it displays a level of delusion that would be scary if the author worked at an actual college or wrote for an actual paper.  

I decided to read the column with an open mind and not assume its author a bigot, but immediately changed my mind when I got to the first sentence in which the author makes the snarky and bizarre point that one cannot refer to the children of homosexuals as “children of homosexuals”, but rather “children in the custody of homosexuals”. This comment, aside from seeking to relegate non-biological children to second-class status, also displays an epic lack of command of reproduction on the part of the author, which, all things considered, is not surprising. 

Pakaluk acknowledges at the outset that “everyone’s first instinct is to say ‘yes’ “ to the children of homosexuals” but then engages in a self-described “careful consideration” of precisely three anecdotal factors from his experience in his child’s school to conclude that the potential risks are too great to justify humane treatment of such children. 

The first point in the “careful” analysis is the “inevitably of scandal” from allowing the children of The Gays into parochial school.  What scandal, you ask?  It’s probably obvious, but what he’s addressing is the scandal of school employees or other parents “dealing with the two men in such a way as to implicitly teach [children] that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality”.  Apparently the church could abide children in the custody of gays if the gays were publicly scorned or if the six-year-olds in question were allowed to throw rocks at them when they came around.

The second point, and what seemed to bother Pakaluk the most, was positively terrifying possibility that, in a secret attempt to be loving parents, such gays might come to school to participate in class trips or other activities during which they might act normally, thereby indicating “pride” in a lifestyle when they should be exhibiting embarrassment and shame.  As evidence of the validity of this concern, Pakaluk offers the example (and curious grammar) of some gay parents in his son’s class who were “interestingly activist in hosting pizza parties, sponsoring tables at fundraisers, and volunteering when parental help was needed”.  And if it wasn’t bad enough that the parents were hosting never-ending pizza parties and volunteering tons of their time for the benefit of theirs and other children, the school felt no obligation to inform the other parents that their children were being served pizza by a same-sex couple!

The third and final point related to a “very real danger” that a boy being raised in a homosexual family “would bring to school something obscene or pornographic” because he would have “encountered [pornographic items] in his household” which makes perfect sense because gay people are notoriously inappropriate with their children and do tend to leave piles of smut lying around their well-decorated apartments.

Pakaluk received a healthy amount of criticism for his idiotic drivel, and offered a defense of his words that was about what you would expect from someone delusional enough to accuse gay people of plotting to host too many pizza parties.  The Church, for its part, did not distance itself from the article’s sentiments, but offered a very politic apology to anyone who found its contents offensive.  I don’t suspect we’ll hear from Herr Benedict XVI on this one but I wish we could. Anyone who ever equated homosexuality to the destruction of the rainforests deserves to be heard.  

Isaac Garcia-Dale is a freelance writer and friend of gay people – even the ones who try to volunteer all the time at their children’s schools.


Footnote #1:

">www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=11893  

The above link used to connect a reader with the original piece.  Apparently, due to the firestorm from anyone who's ever known a gay person or used their head, the author decided to retract point #3, the inevitability of pornography, from his original work.  Luckily for me, he and his church are standing firm on the other two.  Good luck guys!