Church bars severely autistic boy from mass...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I heard the priest correspondent of Fox News said that the priest of the parish offered this family the entire cry room. There would be no other kids in there. I could be wrong for I have not read anything on this topic, but only what I heard on Fox News. The correspondent priest said he had talked to that parish priest over the phone and that is what the the parish priest offered the family and they refused.
That’s what I’ve heard also. If this is true, well, these parents should be ashamed. They are just refusing to cooperate at their priests expense. It sounds to me like the only “option” they will agree to is their son being allowed to sit in a pew tied up. Anything less is “discriminiation”.
 
I support the Priest. He is aware of the situation and it is HIS call as to how to best care for his flock.

I would be terribly frightened to attend this parish because obviously the parents cannot predict his irratic behavior. It was asked what MY responsibility to this young man was? Prayers, most certainly, beyond that I am uncertain. I do know that my main responsiblity is to my own young children and I would not attend a parish with an out of control, 225 lb. boy running around who could possibly hurt (or even kill) them. Not a chance. I would not knowingly walk into a dangerous situation with my children. The Priest said it was dangerous. Unless someone is willing to call this Priest, who is totally aware of this situation, a bold faced liar, I think this discussion is pretty much done.
 
Interesting that the majority of the truly Christian responses (based on Matthew 21 which not a single solitary poster has addressed) have not been from Catholics on this issue.

From autismspeaks.org

This was posted on another forum: There are two sides to every story . . .

From Press Release: Mother of boy with autism barred from mass corrects statements from priest & Diocese• The language in the restraining order reflects the view of a person who does not understand the symptoms of autism. Adam may be large and sometimes physical but he is not angry and violent, and does not spit in church. He exhibits characteristic traits common in people with autism, such as self-injurious behavior and meltdowns when facing sensory overload or when feeling overwhelmed. • Fr. Walz used leading language, such as saying Adam has “urinated in church.” However my son did not publicly expose himself, as the term “urinate” implies. Adam has incontinence issues on rare occasion, and these have been thoroughly cleaned by the family. Young children also have accidents. No one knows how many seniors have “urinated in church” – all who do deserve privacy and dignity.• Most of the time Adam can walk through a crowd of people in a patient and gentle way. And because our family leaves the church service early, there should not be anyone during these times to “bolt through.” At times Fr. Walz has refused requests to help our son get safely through the aisles. • Fr. Walz unfairly describes Adam’s autistic behaviors as “disruptive.” Yet other children often cry or act out during mass for long periods of time. Visually, unless you sit in the back there is no disruption.• Fr. Walz refers to Adam’s self-injurious behavior as “dangerous,” saying he “strikes himself in the head violently.” That shows no understanding, and offers no aid. Adam harms no one else physically.

When people with autism feel stressed, they may like the sensation of weight or deep pressure to calm themselves. Therapists use weighted blankets and vests. Temple Grandin, PhD, who also has autism, designed a gentle squeeze machines for this purpose. Sitting on Adam’s lap or even his chest carefully on occasion gives him comfort during trying times, and also works to help restrain him during those times that he is melting down or feeling overwhelmed. • Sometimes my husband and I need to restrict Adam’s movements to prevent him from hurting himself or his family who sit near him. Other families and school personnel are trained in safe restraint practices. My husband and I place a fleece strip (not rope) around either our son’s wrists or ankles. During these times he is not a danger to those seated around us. If we feel he may be momentarily out of control, we would ask those people to step aside for a few moments, but that would be rare. • I do not recall any episode that could be described as such: “[V]ery recently he [Adam] bolted out and had to be tackled by his family. He battered his father as he was being restrained.” In fact, over the past two months, Adam has made almost no noises during church, he has been actually standing, sitting, and kneeling with the congregation. Adam has been attempting to make the sign of the cross, hold hands at the Our Father, offer the sign of peace with those around him, and generally participate like most other people at Mass who do not make the verbal responses.

Regarding concerns about our foreign exchange daughter: She had been living in our home for six months. She accepted Adam and understood his ways. Fr. Walz misinterpreted the incident he described. She was standing near Adam because she preferred to be by him. In an attempt to socialize, or perhaps because she weighed just the right amount, Adam took her by the waist and showed her that he would like her to sit on his lap. She did so willingly, and with a smile on her face. It was an act of kindness on her part. I watched the situation very closely, as did my husband. There was nothing inappropriate about the way he touched her. He never grabbed her buttocks nor her thighs. Consequently we were very shocked to see that false statement in the restraining order. When Fr. Walz reported his version to the County, the report was ignored. The foreign exchange agency, ASA, has a policy of removing any student whenever there is an allegation of sexual abuse, regardless of whether or not it is substantiated. So she was removed against her will, against the local ASA rep’s will, and against her family’s wishes in Poland. Fr. Walz’s actions were scandalous to her faith, as well as to my children who loved their ASA sister dearly.• From mid-June 2007 to present no special accommodations for Adam have been offered to our family, except to watch mass on the basement TV for an indefinite time. Adam has attended mass with the congregation all his life. Changing the routine of someone with autism is not only painful for them, but takes time and effort and in this particular situation would likely result in worse behavior problems.

The priest, Fr. Dan Walz, refused to discuss our family’s situation with anyone trained in autism, including a behavioral consultant hired by the parents specifically to help with accommodations for mass. This well-known and experienced behavioral consultant wrote a three-page report with many suggestions; however it was ignored. Fr. Walz also refused to speak with a county social worker who tried to help the parish find reasonable accommodations for Adam’s continued inclusion. • The worst of Adam’s behaviors resulted from lack of accommodations or cooperative discussions. Case in point: The car-revving incident. Normally our family left Church before the closing song, which would allowed three minutes before the congregation left. During Lent, Fr. Walz omitted the closing song and failed to ask the congregation to wait to leave until our family had left first. • Fr. Walz refused mediation through a local Protestant minister. He refused it unless his only option – Adam not attending Mass – was on the table. I believe that over the past 11 months Fr. Walz lobbied both parish and diocese to approve his plan to bar Adam from Mass. A March 3, 2008 letter through the diocesan Tribunal office stated: “For mediation to take place, however, all things must be on the table to be discussed. This means that the issue of taking Adam out of Mass must remain open.” • Fr. Walz’s goal is clear: "I have made repeated efforts through the Catholic Education Ministries, Caritas Family Services and, most recently, sought to try and mediate the matter with the family TO ASK THEM TO VOLUNTARILY NOT BRING ADAM TO CHURCH, but to no avail (emphasis mine). He admits he made no attempts to accommodate for the purposes of inclusion during this process.

Fr. Dan claims to have contacted the parish insurer. However I have never seen an actual letter from the insurer nor have the two parish trustees been presented with a copy. Fr. Dan claims it was attached to the RO, however I asked at the court house for it, and they said they don’t have it, either. • Canon Law which Fr. Dan quotes has to be interpreted in light of Church doctrine. Church doctrine does not exclude any individual from participation in mass except those who have been “excommunicated” after proper canonical procedure has been followed.• Neither the bishop nor the Vicar General have attempted to discuss Adam’s behaviors with the Races; they are relying solely on statements made by Fr. Walz.“It is shocking that with Adam’s sustained and dramatically improved behavior that the restraining order would come at this time,” Race concluded. She hopes that increased public awareness will lead to improved understanding of people with autism, social justice, and maximized spiritual inclusion
 
Interesting that the majority of the truly Christian responses (based on Matthew 21 which not a single solitary poster has addressed) have not been from Catholics on this issue.
Interesting the way you keep characterizing everyone who sides with the Priest and disagrees with your opinion as Un-Christian.
 
During Lent, Fr. Walz omitted the closing song and failed to ask the congregation to wait to leave until our family had left first. • Fr. Walz refused mediation through a local Protestant minister.
My parish always omits the closing song during lent. No suprise there? 🤷

Why should the Priest meet with a Protestant Pastor???

Do Protestant Pastors call up Catholic Priests to “mediate” problems in their congregations???
 
Ok, so basically this mother is publicly calling her priest a liar? This is just really sad, imo.
 
Interesting the way you keep characterizing everyone who sides with the Priest and disagrees with your opinion as Un-Christian.
Yet* another *post that fails to address Matthew 21, and ignores my statement, “The gospels were written about Adam.”

I am not the person who told the parable of the sheep and the goats.

But I understand your indignation and rage. There were a group of very righteous priests who murdered a man on a cross who challenged them to respond with radical love to the heart of God.

Another blog entry from a priest who actually knows the family.

simplycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/about-carol-race-from-someone-who-knows-her/

Dear Darcee,

Thank you for this posting. I do hope that your anger has subsided. You seemed especially upset that Mrs. Race “spent the day lining up legal help.” I allow myself gently to point out that the pastor and the parish council are the ones who chose to unleash the media storm - they chose to go ahead with a restraining order and themselves reported the fact to the press, knowing full well the circus that would follow. After having been threatened with jail time and with news cameras already in her face, Mrs. Race was well advised to spend the day lining up legal help. The parish had lined up their legal help well in advance.

And she was advised. Mrs. Race took this step on the advice of advocacy groups for the handicapped of which she is an active member.

I know Mrs. Race because we studied theology together. This mom in Minnesota is actually a professional Roman Catholic theologian who studied dogmatic theology under the now Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph von Schönborn. Her love for the Church has been constant from her early work on the Catechism of the Catholic Church while she lived in Switzerland to her years as DRE in the Twin Cities to recent years, where she has served her parish in many capacities. She began writing about the place of children, including handicapped children, in the heart of the People of God from way before she could have known that she herself would become the mother of a severely autistic child. As the godfather of one of her children, I have followed this family for many years from my friary here in Scandinavia.

Please believe me, that it pains Mrs. Race a great deal that the Catholic Church is made to look bad. It is true that the parish “offered alternatives” - but all of these so called alternatives were ways to keep Adam out of the church, for example, they offered special Masses just for him in private at home, closed circuit transmissions of the Mass directly to his home - and other fanciful ideas designed to spare people the sight and sounds of a handicapped boy in church.

In my heart, I pray that I am wrong when I suspect that the real issue is fear. Some adults in that parish (including the priest) seem to be afraid of this autistic child, a fear born, it seems, of ignorance and prejudice. I feel like I am reading a novel about the 13th century, but fear of “odd” people strikes deep - in this sense, this truly IS an issue of faith.

I thank you for your insightful and honest comments. You have a good blog here.

Peace and all good,
Fr. Robert G. Showers OFM Conv.
guardian of Consolatrix Afflictorum Friary in Roskilde, Denmark
 
I don’t understand what is so horrible about offering this family a special time to come together and have a special Mass just for them. It sounds to me like the priest is doing what he can to protect the congregation while offering a suitable accommodation for this family. How is it unchristian to do this?
I personally think the parents want to make a federal case out of this and it saddens me that they have a desire to do that.
Having been disabled myself, I understand that not everyone is at the same place in life, and for this young boy, being the center of attention at Mass seems to be a grave disservice to him. Why do the parents want to put him through that?
But what really doesn’t make sense is saying that those of us who believe that this family should make other arrangements with the parish are somehow less Christian than those who think anything goes are.🤷
 
Yet* another *post that fails to address Matthew 21, and ignores my statement, “The gospels were written about Adam.”

I am not the person who told the parable of the sheep and the goats.

But I understand your indignation and rage. There were a group of very righteous priests who murdered a man on a cross who challenged them to respond with radical love to the heart of God.

Another blog entry from a priest who actually knows the family.

simplycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/about-carol-race-from-someone-who-knows-her/

Dear Darcee,

Thank you for this posting. I do hope that your anger has subsided. You seemed especially upset that Mrs. Race “spent the day lining up legal help.” I allow myself gently to point out that the pastor and the parish council are the ones who chose to unleash the media storm - they chose to go ahead with a restraining order and themselves reported the fact to the press, knowing full well the circus that would follow. After having been threatened with jail time and with news cameras already in her face, Mrs. Race was well advised to spend the day lining up legal help. The parish had lined up their legal help well in advance.

And she was advised. Mrs. Race took this step on the advice of advocacy groups for the handicapped of which she is an active member.

I know Mrs. Race because we studied theology together. This mom in Minnesota is actually a professional Roman Catholic theologian who studied dogmatic theology under the now Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph von Schönborn. Her love for the Church has been constant from her early work on the Catechism of the Catholic Church while she lived in Switzerland to her years as DRE in the Twin Cities to recent years, where she has served her parish in many capacities. She began writing about the place of children, including handicapped children, in the heart of the People of God from way before she could have known that she herself would become the mother of a severely autistic child. As the godfather of one of her children, I have followed this family for many years from my friary here in Scandinavia.

Please believe me, that it pains Mrs. Race a great deal that the Catholic Church is made to look bad. It is true that the parish “offered alternatives” - but all of these so called alternatives were ways to keep Adam out of the church, for example, they offered special Masses just for him in private at home, closed circuit transmissions of the Mass directly to his home - and other fanciful ideas designed to spare people the sight and sounds of a handicapped boy in church.

In my heart, I pray that I am wrong when I suspect that the real issue is fear. Some adults in that parish (including the priest) seem to be afraid of this autistic child, a fear born, it seems, of ignorance and prejudice. I feel like I am reading a novel about the 13th century, but fear of “odd” people strikes deep - in this sense, this truly IS an issue of faith.

I thank you for your insightful and honest comments. You have a good blog here.

Peace and all good,
Fr. Robert G. Showers OFM Conv.
guardian of Consolatrix Afflictorum Friary in Roskilde, Denmark
It is crucial that anyone who reads this post go to the link and read Darcee’s response to Fr. Showers.
 
I read Darcee’s reply. Everyone should. It is essential to understanding this situation.
Darcee also has an autistic child, along with five other children, and is a faithful Catholic. Read what she has to say.
 
I think it’s worth posting…

Dear Father Showers,

I do appreciate your contacting me about the Adam Race situation.

I must respectfully disagree with the idea that by soliciting the restraining order the church of St Joseph is responsible for the media circus that followed. While I am sure Carol Race is a good woman, a good Catholic and an advocate for her son and others with disabilities, she has taken this to the media. The responsibly for her face being on national television is her’s, she has lined up the interviews. While Carol has the responsibility to advocate for her son, Father Walz must serve his parish and advocate for them as well. If the allegations in the restraining order are even partially true I would, in all compassion, suggest the perhaps Mrs Race is not being completely objective in her assessment of her son’s behaviors impact on the congregation. I would agree it may be a matter of fear, but I offer you that the fear may be a legitimate response grounded in reality.

At this point it might be worth sharing a bit of my own situation with you. My daughter, Rachel is 14 and severally autistic. I too am a homeschooling mother with five other children. We attend mass at Holy Rosary Church here in Portland, Oregon. When my Rachel hit puberty her behaviors became aggressive. She would hit, bolt away from us, she became randomly violent. Not out of anger, not from some internal violence, but just out of the frustration of her autism. With her new size and lack of impulse control she is capable of injuring others. Believe me when I say that I have nothing but compassion for the Race family’s situation. I know, as very few others can know, what dealing with autism is like. I have been the woman in the pew with the child hooting at the ceiling and humming during the Consecration. Our family has experienced first had what it is like to be stared at, glared at even by those few who are less than understanding. So please, don’t think that I would not feel compassion toward this family. I want to see every parish open and welcoming to people with disabilities. The last thing I would support is a parish not allowing an autistic person to attend the regular mass unless their behavior was truly disruptive and/or dangerous.

I take issue with only two things.

First, I don’t not agree that the accommodations offered the Race family were , as you put it, “fanciful ideas designed to spare people the sight and sounds of a handicapped boy in church.” This family has been in the same parish for over ten years, it isn’t as though they were new to the parish, or that the congregation hasn’t been accustomed to seeing them for many years. The request to keep Adam apart from other parishioners didn’t come until the summer of 2007. This would be about the time Adam hit puberty and violent autistic behaviors are known to increase during that time. The accommodations themselves seem very reasonable to me. I am sure you are aware that many parishes have closed circuit TVs for overflow or “cry” rooms. Special private masses also seems a very good option and it speaks well that the priest would be willing to go to that length. Many priests wouldn’t have even offered something that would require them to commit so much of their time as going to the Race’s home to say mass just for them.

Second, going to the media was, in my opinion, wrong. I accept that she was advised to do that, but advocacy groups, while they provide a definite service, also also have an agenda that is very focused. Of course they want media attention to their cause. But what they don’t realize is how this can backfire and serve to more isolate the very population they are advocating for. How many parents have seen Carol Race on the television speaking about her son being barred from church and will now not even attempt to come to mass with their autistic child? How many priests will see this a feel a sinking sense of dread if they find a family with a severally autistic child has moved into their parish? Most people don’t like publicity, they don’t want a fight and would rather avoid confrontation. I hope you understand that my anger about that isn’t just that the church looks bad in this, but that all families with autistic teens will on some level be painted with the same brush because of the publicity. Mrs. Race is not looking like the Moses she says she feels like leading families with autistic children into the promised land. She is looking desperate and unable to compromise, perhaps unable to come to terms with the severity of her son’s situation.

And I say that with the upmost compassion. Because that was also me. When my daughter was twelve she bit her brother in the arm. Not out of anger at him, but mad at me for putting the pop-tarts away. We took my son to the pediatrician, a wonderful woman who has known my family since my youngest were babies, our doctor looked at me with pained eyes and said, “If you or Kyle had done this I would have to call the Department of Children’s Services to report abuse.” I can not express how difficult that was to hear. But I had to hear it. Rachel’s younger siblings were afraid of her. We came to the painful decision to place Rachel in a group home setting. So please belive me when I say that I really feel for the Races, but Adam has hit a child in mass, Adam got into another person’s car and revved the engine after bolting away from his parents. Apart from all other things those two items alone, which are in no way disputed by Mrs. Race, are enough to say that there is a reasonable fear that Adam could seriously harm someone in the parish. The parish has offered a way to minimize that possibility, instead of utilizing those options she has chosen to press for full inclusion and taken her case to the media.

My prayers are with this family Carol especially, this must be bafflingly difficult for her.

Thank you for visiting my blog and contacting me with your concerns and insights.

Respectfully yours,

Darcee *******

 
I read Darcee’s reply. Everyone should. It is essential to understanding this situation.
Darcee also has an autistic child, along with five other children, and is a faithful Catholic. Read what she has to say.
Since she disagrees with honeysuckle I am sure she will soon be labled Un-Christian,
 
EstesBob, what do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 21? Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that a spirit of compassion should be extended to Adam, and Adam was indeed meant to be excluded, and we should all be furious at this mother for having a different story than the priest, or having the radical idea that it edifies the body of Christ to have the disabled among us.

You have read the Bible, haven’t you? Can you give us your perspective on how we take those words and apply them to Adam?

Here is my opinion of Darcee’s perspective.

“The accommodations themselves seem very reasonable to me. “

Whether or not it is reasonable to exclude Adam from the larger Catholic community on the basis of Adam’s behaviors is an unknown to Darcee.

In order to agree with Darcee that Adam’s behaviors should exclude him from Mass we must assume his mother is not telling the truth in her statement posted above. We must thoroughly discount her claim that he has been perfectly behaved for two months, and is able to handle the experience if she is given the requested space. We must also discount her request for an ABA therapist to work with her child during Mass that was denied by the priest.

Darcee’s own violent autistic child does not grant her objectivity here. She may have some compassion, but maintaining cognitive resonance requires her to side with the priest, since she herself made the personal decision to exclude her daughter from Mass.

“Second, going to the media was, in my opinion, wrong…”

I am curious why Darcee faults Mrs. Race for defending herself in the media when the priest clearly states the decision to go to the media was made by the Diocese.

It is also very curious that a Diocese would make the decision to go both to the courts and the media with a dispute in violation of 1 Corinthians 6:6.
 
Honeysuckle,

I am posting this private message and my reply publicly because I do not wish to take part in private massaging concerning this issue. Anything that is to be said between you and I concerning this subject can be done in the light of the day and not behind closed doors. God bless.
40.png
honeysuckle:
In response to your accusatory comments:

I am quite confident that my response to this situation is the only truly Christian response. I have addressed both sides of the issue; noone else has said even one compassionate word about this boy or his family. If there is anyone who should be ashamed, it is you, not me. I know without a doubt that I am right, and it sad and disturbing that people who are faithful enough to come to a Catholic forum cannot see that
Honeysuckle,

Perhaps you truly do not see just how uncharitable you are being in this thread. However, perhaps when the vast majority of Christians and Catholics are on the opposite side of a position, it might be worth taking a moment and doing a self-examination. No one has expressed a hatred of the child nor for that matter the parents of the child. I have seen posts that indicate the poster is/was upset at the ACTIONS/INACTIONS of the parents in this situation but no one has said that they hate the parents themselves. Additionally, you have, on several occasions, either implied or directly stated that you are the only one that has a true Christian grasp of the situation. That my brother/sister is very prideful and presumptuous. I personally feel sad for everyone involved. Certainly, the boy is not at fault. However, given the situation what is the priest to do? He has even offered to come to the home of the boy and say Mass there! Do you have any idea what an absolute honor that would be?! He (the priest) certainly has tried to come to an understanding of the situation in which both the boy and his family are feed as well as others within the parish. Therefore, I most certainly can’t agree with you that the priest is incorrect in this situation. That leaves the parents… whom I don’t blame either. I understand that they wish to join WITH the community at mass. I certainly understand why they wish to do so as a family. However, whether or not they want to recognize the situation or not, they carry a responsibility that most other families do not. They have a special needs child. That is not an evil, but it is a responsibility that God has given them and they are obliged to shoulder it. That means that despite their WANTS that perhaps there are things in the world that they will not be able to do and/or things that they must do in which others may not have to do. Their dear son has a disability that can and indeed has endangered other people. Their son is unable to take the responsibility to control himself and so it therefore falls to the family to assist him in this matter. How Christian would it be for the parents to ignore the situation and allow someone to get injured? If that happens on Church property the Church and the family might find themselves in a lawsuit. I know what your argument is… we are to have faith that Christ will protect those involved. Well, the fact is Christ doesn’t expect His people to simply “have faith” without also taking action. If that were the case, a student need never study for an exam again. He/she would simply pray and have faith and ace the test. You know as well as I do that God does not work this way.

In closing, I would simply ask that perhaps there are Christians on this site other than yourself and even if they may not agree with you, it doesn’t make them any less Christian. God bless.
 
The heart of the debate, Tietjen, is whether or not the boy is dangerous or misunderstood.

Whether he may be accommodated, or whether that is not reasonable.

Whether the parents have been demanding, or whether the priest has been insensitive.

IF the boy is not dangerous, and IF the boy may be reasonably accomodated without endangering the general population, then the gospel prevails and we must accommodate him on the basis of Scripture.

IF the boy is dangerous, then his mother must deal a serious case of obstinancy and denial.

Can we agree that this is the issue?

Now, given the above facts, I think it is interesting that NOBODY has given the family the benefit of the doubt on this forum except me.

Despite what I posted from his mother, and despite what I posted from the priest in Scandinavia.

What does that tell you? It doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here and figure out that the general attitude is *rejecting *and fearful of the boy on the basis of few facts, and that is not a Christian attitude, regardless of how you may rationalize it away.

It also may interest you that I am not disabled, nor do I have anyone in my family who is seriously disabled.

I am offended by the grace of God at the inability of Christians to see their responsibility to other human beings, and to instead mimize and rationalize away the pain of this family and their responsibilty to bear the cross for the family.

There is a woman in my parish, just as sweet as she could be, with a serious weight issue. I remember seeing people wrinkle their nose in disgust at her. That OFFENDS ME. And it should offend everyone who is a child of God. I am not overweight, so this isn’t a personal issue. This is an issue of me being disgusted at the failure of the Church to recognize the value of having the disabled among us to edify us.

Pride has not a thing to do with standing on the truth of the gospel, and that is what I am doing.
 
EstesBob, what do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 21? Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that a spirit of compassion should be extended to Adam, and Adam was indeed meant to be excluded, and we should all be furious at this mother for having a different story than the priest, or having the radical idea that it edifies the body of Christ to have the disabled among us.
quote]

Which part of matthew are you referencing because in another reply you wanted us to look at chapter 7 which is

Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

How is nobody extending compassion to Adam? Because you feel as if him not being at mass then he is some how not a full part of the community? Well what about the shut-ins or those who deal with issue such as OCD or serve aniexties and can’t leave their houses or anybody who can’t get to mass. Does this mean they are not part of the body of christ? NO. It just means that they are physically not present at mass. They may watch mass on TV or the priest may visit them later. There is no discrimination or lack of compassion. No one is denying him the sacraments just when he might receieve them.

I think Dacree’s reply was beautiful and enlightening from someone who has walked in the shoes of the family herself.
 
honeysuckle;3710284:
EstesBob, what do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 21? Perhaps I am mistaken in believing that a spirit of compassion should be extended to Adam, and Adam was indeed meant to be excluded, and we should all be furious at this mother for having a different story than the priest, or having the radical idea that it edifies the body of Christ to have the disabled among us.
quote]

Which part of matthew are you referencing because in another reply you wanted us to look at chapter 7 which is

Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

How is nobody extending compassion to Adam? Because you feel as if him not being at mass then he is some how not a full part of the community? Well what about the shut-ins or those who deal with issue such as OCD or serve aniexties and can’t leave their houses or anybody who can’t get to mass. Does this mean they are not part of the body of christ? NO. It just means that they are physically not present at mass. They may watch mass on TV or the priest may visit them later. There is no discrimination or lack of compassion. No one is denying him the sacraments just when he might receieve them.

I think Dacree’s reply was beautiful and enlightening from someone who has walked in the shoes of the family herself.
I am sorry, I posted this yesterday and then forgot the Scripture reference and keep saying Matthew 21. (DUH!) ***Thank you ***for being the first person to look this up.

It is actually Matthew 25: 31-46

‘When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and He will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”’
41 ‘Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then He will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’
 
The heart of the debate, Tietjen, is whether or not the boy is dangerous or misunderstood.

Whether he may be accommodated, or whether that is not reasonable.

Whether the parents have been demanding, or whether the priest has been insensitive.

IF the boy is not dangerous, and IF the boy may be reasonably accomodated without endangering the general population, then the gospel prevails and we must accommodate him on the basis of Scripture.

IF the boy is dangerous, then his mother must deal a serious case of obstinancy and denial.

Can we agree that this is the issue?

Now, given the above facts, I think it is interesting that NOBODY has given the family the benefit of the doubt on this forum except me.

Despite what I posted from his mother, and despite what I posted from the priest in Scandinavia.

What does that tell you? It doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here and figure out that the general attitude is *rejecting *and fearful of the boy on the basis of few facts, and that is not a Christian attitude, regardless of how you may rationalize it away.

It also may interest you that I am not disabled, nor do I have anyone in my family who is seriously disabled.

I am offended by the grace of God at the inability of Christians to see their responsibility to other human beings, and to instead mimize and rationalize away the pain of this family and their responsibilty to bear the cross for the family.

There is a woman in my parish, just as sweet as she could be, with a serious weight issue. I remember seeing people wrinkle their nose in disgust at her. That OFFENDS ME. And it should offend everyone who is a child of God. I am not overweight, so this isn’t a personal issue. This is an issue of me being disgusted at the failure of the Church to recognize the value of having the disabled among us to edify us.

Pride has not a thing to do with standing on the truth of the gospel, and that is what I am doing.
How do you not fall off of the high horse you have put yourself on? I thought we were suppose to be humble.

I agree and think we learn alot from having the disabled around. But that is not the issue here. No one is asking that those that don’t fit into our normal idea of a person be excluded from mass or not allowed to receieve the sacraments. What is at issue here is how to deal with a family who is refusing to work with the priest (they are refusing because they are acting like it’s our way or your wrong) in dealing with their son who is not being a simple distracting but is being a danger to the community? That is the issue. What happens if the parents turn around and he grabs a stranger visiting the parish or runs someone over in the parking lot and then they sue the parish because the parish should have known better since their was pervious knowledge of this behavior happening? Or if the building catches on fire and because he is tied up that he can’t escape. What then?
 
Beckers you need to get off YOUR high horse, because you apparently have read NOTHING of the other side of the story if you think this comes down to a woman not cooperating with the priest. According to her, the opposite is true.

According to her, the priest refused mediation with a pastor from a Protestant church over the issue, and the priest refused any accommodations that would allow Adam to attend Mass.

I have no high horse.

We are called to be made uncomfortable for those in need.

We are called to forgive people 70 times.

We are called to take off our coat and give it to the person in need.

It is not possible to not be acquainted with that very basic, visceral fact of the gospel and to be a Christian, which is why the* spirit *of how we respond to those in need is what separates the sheep from the goats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top