Sick Homophobe of the Month: Dr. Michael Pakaluk

This guy is vile.  I pity the children who are raised by such an ill-informed, mean-spirited bigot.  Once his kids leave the nest and venture out into the real world, they'll quickly discover that Daddy Was A Prejudiced Man ... 

 Michael Pakaluk is a former philosophy professor at Clark University who now teaches ethics (of all things) at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Virginia.  Earlier this week he penned an opinion piece that was published in The Pilot, a newspaper for the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.  It seems Dr. Pakaluk has a problem with same-sex parents - so much so that he insists they stop calling themselves "parents."  (Any institution of higher learning that employs this homophobe does not deserve that appellation.)  Within Pakaluk's loathsome piece, he puts forth three "reasons" why the children of gay and lesbian couples should be shunned by parochial schools.  The first justification for his prejudice is "the inevitability of scandal."  (He actually uses that phrase, like some nineteenth-century doyenne clutching at her rosary beads.)  The second has to do with his fears that a gay parent might volunteer at a school in order to "advocate for his lifestyle."  It seems the mere presence of a gay adult reading Little House on the Prairie to a classroom of youngsters would contaminate their delicate constitutions.  (As if the Catholic Church wasn't doing a swell job of that already.)  These are harebrained arguments to be sure, and they demonstrate how the homo-sex obsessed mind works.  But Pakaluk's third point crosses the line into Peter LaBarbera/Sally Kern territory:      

"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." 

Our lives are inherently eroticized and pornographic?  That's one of the most offensive things I've heard in a long time.  It shows that Pakaluk is making generalizations about a segment of society of which he knows nothing.  Should we assume that all priests molest children because some do?  Then why would he assume that all gays look at pornography because some do?  Plenty of straight husbands and fathers also pore over pornographic images, not that there's anything wrong with that.  (But perhaps this is something Pakaluk struggles with, since he seems so focused on it.)  This is the worst sort of stereotyping imaginable, similar to the antebellum logic that a black man couldn't be trusted alone with a white woman.  They might assault them, the southern racists claimed, because it's in their "carnal nature."  Pakaluk is asserting that same-sex households are just littered with obscene material.  Goodness, you can't open a kitchen drawer and get to the silverware without pushing aside old copies of Man Meat and Red Hot Studs. ("Dad, I need some help with my homework." "Sorry, son. Can't do it now. I'm too busy downloading porn from the Internet.")  How absurd.

Antonio Enrique, editor of The Pilot and no friend to the LGBT community, has expressed mild regret over the article.  He said in a statement: "The tone of the piece was strong, and we apologize if anyone felt offended by it.  Pilot readers are accustomed to reading differing views on many complex social issues."  (I wonder how many times Mr. Enrique has published "differing views" about, say, the "inferiority" of racial minorities. None, I'd guess. But the lives of queer folk can be disparaged indiscriminately.)

From the Boston Globe:  Pakaluk, who has been writing monthly columns for The Pilot since 2002, according to the archdiocese, stood by those aspects of the column yesterday. 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.  "Parents have to be committed to trying to live Catholic morality; otherwise, they are not partnering with the school," he said. Jarrett Barrios, a former state senator from Cambridge who is now president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, called the column "void of the love, compassion, and inclusiveness that so many proud practicing Catholics have grown up with."

Ya' think?  Then why the fuck aren't more "proud practicing Catholics" standing up to that wellspring of social injustice called the Vatican?  Why aren't more "proud Catholics" demanding the resignation of their pedophile-enabling pope?  Why don't more "proud Catholics" confront their bishops who make similarly odious remarks?  What repellent position would Mother Church have to take before rank-and-file Catholics rise up and take a stand against the Holy See's turgid dogma?

Pakaluk is not the disease.  He is merely the symptom of a cancerous intolerance that infects Catholic doctrine.  Until the Church stops bashing gays, human buboes like himself will keep popping up on the body of Christ, sickening it and driving away those who might bring some spiritual vigor to an ailing religion.

Comments

[Robert]

Even the title of the piece written by "Michael Pakaluk" was clearly inflammatory "Children in the 'custody' of same-sex couples", the intent is that those children are prisoners of sexual perverts when combined with the tone of the article.
Obviously the individual has real and extreme personal issues with sexual temptations for those of the same sex and the public accessibility of same sex partners causes him real and enduring sexual tensions.
As for the institution, from the research portion of the web site "renew the Christian intellectual tradition and remain faithful to the rich teaching of the Catholic Church". so a closet religious college for a future generation of self loathing closeted sexual perverts, the temptations obviously weigh very, very heavily upon their dark souls. Apparently they are so ashamed of their biases they leave no hint of Catholicism or Christianity on the title page of their web site, tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Marnie]

Does Pakaluk only have sex when he trying to procreate? And practices abstinence the rest of his life? Once he and his wife have all the chidren theu decided to have he straped on the chastity belt?

That claim of the Catholic church (which it breaks repeatedly itself)that sex is only for procreation is just silly and avoids reality and the complexities (like clerical child rape) that come with reality.

Betcha he does it for fun like everybody else.

[Richard]

Your article was ABSOLUTELY wonderful to read. I like your style. It is very refreshing.

[Isa]

Great article. I wish I was surprised that Pakaluk is spewing this kind of hateful, ignorant trash but I have first-hand experience with this kind of person unfortunately. Like many of us do, I guess.

[Josh Proctor]

I find it hilarious that the ignorant usually slander their opponents with the terms that describe themselves most efficiently. The author of this article, along with a few of the commentators, display their own ignorance as they attempt to slander Pakaluk with the word. First and foremost, being Catholic is a choice made by each Catholic. Choosing to be or remain Catholic is a willful decision to place oneself, in matters of faith and morals, COMPLETELY under the authority of 1)their local bishop, 2)their national council of bishops, 3)every law of the Church, and 4)the Roman Catholic Pope. The Church has NEVER changed her dogma and she never will. The Church cannot contradict the Sacred Scripture. The Scriptures and the Church decry homosexual actions as inherently sinful. It's not up for debate. If you can't accept this, don't be Catholic. Simple.