Strollerderby

I am the mom of 2 kids on the spectrum and sadly, this isn't the first time I've heard this happening--not necessarily to the point of a restraining order, but I have a friend with a child on the spectrum who was also asked to leave said child at home.  I had previously been to church with this couple and their little girl was not disruptive.

My oldest was an altar server and was taken off the list because once during mass, he wasn't moving fast enough for father.  No explanation, no apology, one time only-so he wasn't messing up on a regular basis.  I was told his services were no longer required because he didn't know what he was doing.  He was in 8th grade, he had been doing this since 5th grade.  

As in any religion, there are wonderful and compassionate people out there, but there are idiots too.  Catholics are duty bound to help out people who are less fortunate than themselves (if they are practicing--and knowledgeable about their religion).  So why not help this family out???  

This isn't a kid just making a few noises.  According to the AP story, “Adam struck a child during mass, nearly knocks elderly parishioners over…, spits and sometimes urinates in church and fights when he is being restrained. He also… assaulted a girl by pulling her onto his lap.”  When he started two cars in the parking lot, “people could have been injured or killed.”

The church has tried to accommodate, but the behavior has only become more dangerous.  It’s not the boy’s fault, but his own parents cannot always control him.

I doubt that even Jesus would condone the enabling of such dangerous and disruptive behavior -- posing great risks to others and self -- in the name of “acceptance”.  This is sloppy agape.

Someone can be seriously injured.   The pastor has definite moral and legal responsibilities to protect everyone from harm.   If some child or elderly person were injured, there would be a major lawsuit.  “I was practicing inclusion” would not be a defense for reckless endangerment.

This isn't general discrimination against all handicapped or autistic people.  This is a case of a particular individual with dangerously out-of-control behavior.  There is such a thing as rational discrimination; Adam will never be allowed to drive either.

In a perfect world, everyone would be welcomed everywhere.  But if I had a highly communicable disease, say TB, I’d have no right to mingle in large crowds where I posed a serious threat.  And I think Jesus would agree, notwithstanding that he loved everyone.

My right to inclusion ends where your rights to safety begin.  Is it unreasonable to ask Adam’s parents to accommodate everyone else’s rights to public safety?    

Comparing going to mass with being allow to drive has no logical basis.  There are tests and screenings that determine if someone has the capability to drive.  They are impartial tests. If people are going to have to "qualify" to be good enough for mass, I suspect that many people (those who sleep, chat, wiggle, argue and any number of other things I've seen when sitting through a mass) would fail.

This priest or church has not shown that they have really tried.  They have been extremely vague about their "accommodations" they offered, and they went against scripture by seeking a court to solve this internal problem rather than solving it on their own.

Adam Race is a child of God who's ability to show the glory of God has been tainted by a creation corrupted by sin.  It is not his fault.  Yes, he should behave.  But, YES his church should be intervening and helping to make that possible.  It's a sad thing that his own priest can't recognize that.

Incidentally, Jesus often mingled with crowds full of people with contagious diseases and people who were dangerous. He never once sent anyone away because they were dangerous or contagious.  He did speak strongly against judgmental people who condemned the weak and sick.   So, before you start speaking for Jesus on the issues of inclusion, then you might want to actually study his life. He, in fact, invited, EVERYONE to the wedding feast.  

The point of my mentioning that Adam will never be allowed to drive was to illustrate that there can be rational discrimination and rational exclusion.  A better example would be someone with TB being excluded from any public gathering for the sake of public health and safety.  Those who sleep, chat, etc during Mass do not pose the same safety threat as this situation poses.

I disagree that this church has been vague about and has failed to offer reasonable accommodations, and I’ve read most of what’s out there on the internet.  It’s important to note that Adam and his family have been attending this church for 12 years without any problems until the last year when Adam’s size, strength, and physical behavior became too much for even his parents to handle.  The church’s issue was never “autism”, it’s *public safety.*

No need to imply that I have less than a correct understanding of Jesus (which is a rather hubristic suggestion).  We just have a different understanding of “what would Jesus do?”

Jesus himself didn’t need to run from lepers because he healed them, and because he probably knew how Hansen’s disease was and wasn’t contracted.  He didn’t run from natural threats (the storm at sea) because he had the power to subdue them.  And he didn’t run from arrest because he accepted it as the Divine Plan.

However, nowhere do we see Jesus advocating that others should be physically exposed to unhealed lepers.  Nowhere do we see him advocating that others should deliberately put themselves in harms way, or create situations dangerous to public safety.  Jesus loved everyone, but he didn’t practice sentimental, sloppy agape.

As a Catholic Christian, I’m well aware of Matt 25 (“Whatsoever you do to one of these….), which is one reason I became a SPED teacher (now retired).  I’m not insensitive to the needs of special needs children including those with autism.  However, my primary responsibility was to protect the health and safety of all the children at all times.  

I believe that public safety is this pastor’s goal, despite all the vilifying of him by those, mostly activists, who project ill-intent upon him, and fail to acknowledge that this particular boy’s out-of-control behavior does not belong in this particular setting.

I was a member of the church and I know the family and what Adam is capable of doing... he is a big guy. His parents restrain him the whole time in church and he acts out a lot. He spits climbs over the pews urinates in church and has hit people as well. Father Dan has made many different appoarches for the family so that they can still go to church and all were declined. He even said that he would do a separete mass for the family for their safety and the other members and that was also declined. So really is it his fault? This was Father Dans and the council members last decision and I know right now that this is not what he wants but it is for the safety of the members and for Adam.

The law had to get involved, because Carol Race is a headstrong, abrasive woman.  I remember her being very obstinate and being afraid of her.  I would think Carol is tired of all the LOOK AT ME drama.  She needs to stop pushing peoples buttons.  Is there someone out there, who knows the family and can say where John works?  I think he does not currently work.  How do they get their money?  Anyone know the answers?    

"However, nowhere do we see Jesus advocating that others should be physically exposed to unhealed lepers.  Nowhere do we see him advocating that others should deliberately put themselves in harms way, or create situations dangerous to public safety.  Jesus loved everyone, but he didn’t practice sentimental, sloppy agape."

Really... I thought by allowing Himself to be crucified He put Himself in harms way, RedTown.

Seems he also asked his disciples to sacrifice their lives.

That doesn't mean that if in fact the boy is dangerous he should not be excluded, but it does mean your reasoning and apparent understanding of Scripture is flawed.

I clearly said, "And he didn’t run from arrest because he accepted it as the Divine Plan."  By arrest I was referring to His whole Passion and Death.

I should have said more clearly, "Nowhere do we see Him advocating that others should **carelessly and foolishly** put themselves in harms way, or create situations dangerous to public safety."

Redtown,

I truly hope that if you consider yourself a follower of Christ, you will really listen to what you are saying.  You're saying that Christianity is only acceptable as long as it doesn't put you in harm's way.  That is simply not Christ-following.  If you follow Christ, you follow his example.  Period.  His actions are what we follow. He doesn't have to say that we are to "put ourselves in harm's way" but He sure did for the sake of others!    I'm sorry that you haven't had the opportunity to experience the amazing life you can have when you risk boldly to follow Jesus rather than being concerned about "public safety" or your own safety.  

Again, the TB example is illogical. Autism is not contagious.  With reasonable accomodations and intervention, Adam can attend church.

I've read a fair amount about this on the Internet as well, and haven't once read the church explicitly state what accommodations they have offered.  I have heard that they  offered to have him stay home, watch from a video feed and to do a separate mass for the family.  -- none of those have come from the church's statements either.  So, what, specifically, are the accommodations that the church offered?  Last I checked, excluding the family is not including them.

That's great that you were a special ed teacher, but remember that the REAL experts are the disabled and their parents, not the teachers or the therapists or the doctors or anyone else.  They are the ones that live with the disabilities and know best how to work with them.

And hey, sentimental sloppy agape is way better than no agape at all.  Frankly, choosing to love unconditionally is hardly sentimental and sloppy.  It's well thought out, planned, difficult and committed. It's also much more rewarding than exclusion.

I also have been asked to keep my down syndrome child at home or stay with her at all times. We have a very small church. I was so hurt at first to see that she was not wanted. Then I begin to question--was I setting her up to fail. She is only 5 and put in children's church with 20 other kids. It my job to educate her on behavior in church. I am glad to see that people are wondering what Jesus would do. However, people are the problem, not Jesusl. Am I wrong or didn't he approach a man who was supposed to be possessed? I know that would have seem foolish and dangerous to ordinary people. There can be no comparison.

I am not sure what the father's occupation has to do with any of the important facts of this story. The mother might be pushing buttons, but would any of the civil rights movements have occured if people were afraid to stand up.

This is her child.

Could the people possibly have some sort of information meeting about autism and learn about what they might do to HELP the mother of this boy?  I thought Christians were supposed to be a compassionate people.  Mother of 4 said it right... If Jesus can approach leppers, and possessed men, and all manner of beings, why can't we?

my previous comment mentioned "Mother of 4"...I meant to say "Mother of disabled child"

Redtown...just give it up. They are not going to understand.

As a mother of a special child and a church member I believe that if we want our special children to be accepted in the public we have to make them behave the best we possible can in public. We are lucky enough to have special person that is with our daughter in her sunday school class to take care of her and give her special attention. What is funny is we think that special needs children don't understand certain things but they understand a lot more then we give them credit for and if you let them get away with stuff that you would not let a "normal" child get away with then they are going to push you to the limit. I believe if my child was spitting, hitting, peeing, starting peoples cars at church, I would be very embarressed. I would want to do anything possible to make church a better situation and maybe starting with having him watch the mass from the basement of the church with his parents and other members of the church will help him learn how to handle certain situations. God gives you special needs children to special families, you need to handle situations with grace. Rather than be hard headed maybe she should approach the congregation and let them know she is having a hard time. Be a little more openminded. I am sorry but he definately needs a little disapline. It takes a special needs child approximately 2000 times to learn something but they can do it. Don't just let them continue to reek havoc. Teach him something. Start with not peeing in church or hitting other people.

"I am sorry but he definately needs a little disapline. It takes a special needs child approximately 2000 times to learn something but they can do it. Don't just let them continue to reek havoc. Teach him something. Start with not peeing in church or hitting other people"

What part of he's severely autistic didn't you understand? The boy is incapable of conforming to a standard of acceptable behavior. He's incapable of understanding what acceptable behavior is. He is not responsible for his actions. He is, again, severely autistic.

Having said that ... Redtown, I agree with you. This isn't an issue of discrimination. It is one of public safety. The parents do not dispute that Adam has already struck another child, got into an unoccupied car and revved the engine while parishioners were standing in front of it, and that he is incontinent in church. The priest claims that Adam is extremely disruptive, fights with his parents when they attempt to restrain him (by tying his hands and feet), shouts, and spits. I understand that Adam is incapable of controlling himself. I wonder ... do his parents understand that too? Because, for the life of me, I can't comprehend why the parents will put his right to attend church above the rights of the other parishioners ... to personal safety, and to solemn enjoyment of their sacred rituals. I do not attend that church, but I can't imagine that I'd be able to follow the mass while behind me, a young boy shouts and hollers and his parents are alternately sitting on him while trying to tie him down. I'd be wondering when he's going to get away from them again, and if this time, he'd be directly in the path of my 2-year-old child.