May 19, 2008 10:31 AM
Church bars severely autisic boy from Mass
Tracy asked what I thought of this and I'd like to know what you think:
Church bars severely autistic boy from Mass
After reading the story, I have to say I side with the church. There is a point at which accommodating disabilities begins to infringe on the rights of others - in this case to worship God.
However, this is coming from a mom who thinks that families with shrieking children should remove their kids promptly and that Goldfish crackers and slinkies do not belong in Mass either.
There is a certain level of behavior/quiet/reverence that I think ALL children should be taught to observe during church services. Whenever one of our special needs kids went past the point of comfortability for others (it didn't happen often - and maybe this is why), Tripp or I would take them out.
These parents need to think about others as well as their son. They can get a respite worker to care for him at home while they go to church, or they can do as Tripp and I have done when a child is sick at home - go to separate Masses.
This is hard for me to take a position on, as I am all about inclusion. But not when it creates such a difficult situation for others - which is consistent with how I feel about normal children's behavior in church.
But let's all pray for this situation - the family and the church.
Posted in Autism, Church Issues, Current Affairs, Disabilities | Permalink
Comments
It breaks my heart but I have to say I agree that this boy shouldn't be in services. I don't have a lot of experience with autism, but I wonder what he is getting out of his attendance when he has to be physically restrained most of the time. Obviously he needs a way to worship God, but I don't think regular weekly services with a large community are the best way. I'm sure his parents have had to make accomodations and be flexible about the way he has been educated, and I think the same has to be true in the case of worship. If they wouldn't expect him to be fine in a large school classroom filled with children without disabilities, then why do they suddenly feel he's okay in a large church service? I think they need to stop taking this as a matter of pride and humbly find an alternative way for their son to experience God and worship Him in the way that suits him best. Finding the best way for their son to connect with his Creator should be the goal, not proving points to others about autism.
A side note: my church is filled with children - we even have a painting table at one side of the sanctuary that they can use during worship. If your baby cries (wails, not full-blown meltdown) and you try to leave, our pastor will stop the sermon and ask you to sit back down. But as laid-back as we are, I can't imagine anyone being comfortable knowing that poor young man was tied to his chair.
Posted by: Tari | May 19, 2008 1:24 PM
Wow. As a mother of a special needs boy who can lose self control at Mass, I was all set to rally to the parent's side.
But I think I agree with the Parish priest. The mother admits that they have to tie their son down IN MASS! Not only is that a safety risk, but it is degrading their son. Does Christ want our presence at the expense of personal dignity?
This is not about discriminating against disabled people. It is about keeping a safe community (and there is also the danger of sacrilege). When my son is having one of his episodes, we stay home. If he has problems (any of our children, neurotypical or not) have problems, we take them outside, to the vestibule, or cry room. It's not always about us.
If my son were playing with a deadly weapon (which a car is), whether he was aware or not, malicious or not, I would put a stop to it and make sure it could never happen again- not make excuses.
Posted by: Milehimama | May 19, 2008 1:31 PM
I am a Catholic mom of a 6 year old boy with autism. I've often struggled to keep my son under control during mass, but always leave if he becomes disruptive to others. I am fortunate that my son is not a danger to others. I thought I'd sympathize with the parents in this article before I read it. But, it seems that this young man is a danger to others and thus it is not appropriate for him to be at mass. However, I do believe that the church community should reach out to this family--perhaps find a sitter that can watch the son so that the rest of their family can worship together. It should not have to come to a lawsuit or restraining order--this is not what Jesus would want to happen. Obviously this family has a need that is not being met.
Posted by: Sara | May 19, 2008 3:06 PM
The thing is that there is a problem with churches and people with these kinds of noisy, anti-social disabilities. If a child ( or adult) has no idea of what a quiet reverent atmosphere is, or has not got the ability to respond to one, then it may take a very very long time for them to learn how to behave in a church. Maybe they will never be able to do this, but that doesn't make them any less a child of God, and for that reason decisions like the one taken by the church in the article quoted do make me sad.
I don't think that there are any easy answers to this problem, maybe if there had been better communications between the parents and the church something could have been worked out. As the mother of an autistic child I can think of several possible solutions to this situation, but I guess there had to be good will on both sides for this to happen and it sounds like both sides had run out of that.
Posted by: Sue | May 19, 2008 3:38 PM
This is a very sad and heart wrenching story. While there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to this problem, I think both need to come together to really reach a solution. If the boy is a danger to others, then I can see why the church would not want him there. However, I've always felt that everyone was welcome at church. Perhaps they can sit in the cry room and when he becomes out of control, they can leave? I see the church's view point in regards to keeping others safe, but from the article, it seems like they are being a little bit harsh. If the parents really do have to tie their son down, if he really did pull an exchange student on his lap, start a car, etc. maybe he needs a sitter or some other alternative. I am all for him attending church until he puts others at harm. This is a sad story, from all sides.
Posted by: Paige | May 19, 2008 3:51 PM
According to one article I read, the priest stated in an affidavit that he has made repeated efforts to work with the family to no avail. I feel he and the Diocese have been put into a no-win situation.
This isn't just a matter of accommodating differences; it's about the physical safety of other parishioners and being able to attend Mass without major disruptions.
Posted by: KatieButler | May 19, 2008 7:10 PM
I'm surprised that the parents keep placing their son in a weekly situation where he becomes so overstimulated and agitated that they have to resort to restraints, and this one shocked me, sit on him.
I thought the use of restraints was for emergency purposes. I mean, it would be a light bulb moment for me if I was physically restraining my son in the same situation over and over.
Posted by: Aine | May 19, 2008 9:19 PM
Thank you for posting this Barbara.. this really hits close to home as my six year old niece is severely autistic and I know that this issue is one that my own brother and his wife are facing with their child and it is so hard to know what to say in this situation; the entire situation for both sides is sad and I can feel for the parents and the church as well.
Posted by: Tracy | May 19, 2008 10:20 PM
What a heart-breaking situation. I too, thought I would leap to the defense of the family in question, until I read the article. I can only imagine the challenges of parenting a child with autism, so want to extend compassion and sympathy to that family, and you other posters. Still...
This family seems to be in denial regarding the seriousness of their son's behaviors. They seem not to be considering the risk he presents in that kind of situation. Also, they're not respecting (submitting to) the authority of their church leadership.
One of my kiddos had behavioral problems (not nearly as extreme as those in the article). We always believed the burden was on US to manage our son, and to remove him from situations he couldn't handle, be it church, day camp, whatever. Frankly, there were many events we just couldn't attend because we couldn't predict how he would 'handle' it. While I am all for inclusion, these people need to consider the safety of others first.
I'm sure there are other alternatives, as many of you have suggested. Going to Mass separately (not ideal, but perhaps necessary), getting respite care so the rest of the family can attend together, having the Priest come to the home and give Communion, etc.
I hope they become willing to explore other options.
Posted by: Julie | May 19, 2008 11:47 PM
This is a sad state of affairs, but I have to side with the church. If the boy could "try" weekly to acclimatize him to sitting in the church proper, and if he becomes severely disruptive, hustle him off to the respite room (cry room), then I'd have no issue. Nobody should "start out" in the respite room with books, cheerios toys, etc.
However, if every week require BMAC training on the part of the parents and a situation akin to subduing an angel dust suspect, then that is not acceptable.
Posted by: Tony | May 20, 2008 2:15 PM
This makes me really, really sad. My son is autistic and we haven't been in a church in 10 years because of unspoken disdain and lack of support when he was young and newly diagnosed. We were methodist. I applaud the church for at least taking the time to speak with the family instead of just slowly making it obvious that they were not welcome. I guess I don't blame the church, but if I were the family, that's not a place I'd ever feel welcome again. Probably not the way Jesus would have handled it, however.
Posted by: Jenny | May 20, 2008 9:24 PM
