The Globe reports on controversy over a column in the Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston newspaper, on whether Catholic schools should admit children of gay parents.
Naturally, being the Globe, they didn't link to the column in question (UPDATE: They've added a link, but it only shows up long after the rest of the page loads). Basically, the author argues the Church must boot all gay-reared children because their parents will sneak into Catholic schools and shamelessly push the gay lifestyle. He starts:
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. ...
The author also argues:
... 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. ...
And he fails to note the irony of writing in a Boston Catholic newspaper that:
It should be said that all of my practical concerns involve young children, who should be innocent of sexual matters and whose familial affections are still being formed.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
You know, I don't think that
By anon
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 9:14am
You know, I don't think that he should apologize. The more examples there are of the hate and venom that form a large part of the Roman Catholic institution, the better off all of us -- including Roman Catholics themselves -- are. The organization is rotten to the core, and exposing it for what it really is is the best way to deal with it.
Don't worry, he didn't
By fenwayguy
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 12:29pm
Did I miss something? There's an apology in there?
The Pilot grumbled a "non-apology", not one that says "Sorry, we were wrong to have published such unfounded, judgemental blather," but instead that "anyone (who) felt offended by it" can go ahead and feel apologized to, but we have no idea what they're going on about. Likewise, the author mumbled passively about seeing how others might find his comments offensive -- not that they actually WERE or anything.
Let's face it, this is the Pilot, the amateurishly-written, badly-edited house organ of the institution that longs for a return to those heady days of the Dark Ages. I'm reminded of a piece they ran a few years ago on the local chapter of Courage, the church's "ministry to those who struggle with same-sex attractions." (Can't call them gay, because "gay" means "happy".) Members courageous enough to be quoted nevertheless "asked that only their first names be used" -- proud to stand up for Gay Shame.
"The question arises of
By Molly
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 9:19am
"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."
One cannot? Because, although I don't know about the specific family in question, I do know a number of same-sex couples in which one member either gave birth to or provided sperm for the creation of their children, which I'm pretty sure makes them the "children of" said parent.
By this logic, nobody is a "child of" his or her stepparent, and adopted kids are "children of"...nobody, I guess.
The Pilot is the 'Der
By anon
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 10:46am
The Pilot is the 'Der Sturmer' of currently available newspapers. The entire institution is rotten to the core indeed. I would agree with the first comment--let them dribble nonsense like Fred Phelps and his nitwit army. They only help us make progress.
Whit
Bizarre
By anon
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 11:16am
I hadn't seen the actual column until now. Listening to news reports from the "liberal media" I thought they might be exagerating saying that the column writer said that children of gay couples might bring pornographic items to school. But, no! He actually said that. He also said that they have knowledge of the pornographic items and may mention them in school. I can see his point. It is probably common for gay couples to discuss the use of dildos in front of their children at the breakfast table.
Of course, it all makes sense. Heterosexual parents who have sex only for procreation and nothing else never have any kind of pornography or pornographic items in the house.
What a warped way to think.
Catholic Porn
By Roslindalian
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 4:19pm
I think the Catholic Church (or at least this spoeksman of it) lumps anything having to do with non-procreative sex into "Porn." The only way to avoid engaging in, or being exposed to, porn is to enter into an arranged marriage where your sole purpose of "companionship" is to reproduce as much as possible. Affection? Porn. Love (of earthly things)? Frivilous at best and likely porn. Physical contact not intended to reproduce (or inflict guilt ridden self-punishment). Definately porn.
Let's not forget
By adamg
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 4:45pm
He also says the only true parents are people who share DNA with their offspring. Therefore, adopted children are forever orphans in his sad little book.
Makes sense
By Kaz
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 4:51pm
If you adopt them, then the boys can't remain wards of the church for the priests to rape and the girls repressed into becoming nuns.
Or something like that...
Excellent
By Nonymouse
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 5:20pm
I guess by this guy's logic, I don't have to buy a Father's Day present for next week. Suck it, Guy Who Raised Me (in the Church) for Eighteen Years! Now I can buy more porn!
Thank you. I noticed his
By Striker57
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 8:36pm
Thank you. I noticed his comments that unless you shared DNA you couldn't be called a parent. In his world all adopted kids can't be admitted to a Catholic school because the parents didn't have sex for the singlar purpose of creating them. Sad little hateful man.