Church Can Exclude Autistic Boy: Judge Decides

[HisChildForever]

[quote]So even if he dropped his pants and did pee, the likely hood he was doing it knowing not to do it is slim to none.[/quote]

Even if he didn't know how inappropriate the gesture was, do you think it's appropriate to allow him to continually come into the Church and expose himself (possibly every week) like that? Do you think that's "fair" for the other parishoners? Whether he knows what he's doing or not, if there was someone at my parish like that, I would no longer attend. It is a very sad situation but it's just not acceptable. He grabbed a teenage girl and forced her on his lap? He should not be in the Church. I mean, are you saying that the entire parish should just deal with it?

[Apotheoun]

Here is the older thread on this topic:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=80376&hl"][u]Autistic Child Banned From Catholic Church[/u][/url]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588598' date='Jul 1 2008, 07:26 PM']Yeah but he's autistic which if you read up on the condition, it means he exists in his own world. He can't comprehend the world around him. Even if he did pee on the floor, it was not intentional. An example of autism is people with autism can't put together that a smile means someone's happy. It just doesn't connect for them.

So even if he dropped his pants and did pee, the likely hood he was doing it knowing not to do it is slim to none.[/quote]
Yes; we all realize this. It's a tragedy that he has this condition - no one is arguing that it isn't. Alternatives were offered, the mother didn't like them. I'm sorry, but when I'm worshipping my Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I don't want that desecrated by someone urinating in the House of God, mentally retarded or not. I mean, that's not the same as, say, the tics exhibited by Tourette's sufferers. Not only is his behaviour distracting and (albeit it unintentionally) irreverent, at his size, he is dangerous to other parishioners (and has acted out and injured other church-goers in the past, if I recall correctly). It's not that the Lord doesn't love him as he loves all his flock, but I really don't think it's fair to him nor the other members of the church if his mother puts him in a setting where he's expected to be still, quiet, and orderly for an hour or more. If the alternatives didn't please her, well, that was her choice.
Also, comparing autistic to the poor is fallacious and does not warrant a serious response.

Dear Liberals-At-Large:
You know that "separation of church and state" thing that you're always preaching to us about? Yeah, that goes both ways. Thanks.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588602' date='Jul 1 2008, 07:30 PM']Definatly against the home masses or live feeds as with live feeds there is no communion. Which our mass is basically built around.

I'm not saying there are not other options, just saying I am not for either of those.

Many churches have cry rooms that no matter what happens in them, you can not hear outside the rooms. They could easily go in there and come out for communion. Cause you can hear stuff inside the prayer room, just not outside of it. Also inside the cry rooms there are a limited number of mom's with their babies in it, so it would be much easier for the mom and say an usher to control the childs abusive actions to others. The flayling arms and scream is fine, but an usher could be there to make sure the child does not strike other people inside the cry rooms.[/quote]
Yeah, let's put the bull in a china shop. Great idea.
Seriously? Put a 6 foot +, 225 lb guy in a room with a bunch of babies? Get real.

Also, ever heard of extraordinary ministers? They could bring the host to the mother at home or in the fellow ship hall, etc. I'm sure all of these issues could be worked around, but they require something that the mother has implicitly stated she doesn't want: work.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1588607' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:33 PM']Even if he didn't know how inappropriate the gesture was, do you think it's appropriate to allow him to continually come into the Church and expose himself (possibly every week) like that? Do you think that's "fair" for the other parishoners? Whether he knows what he's doing or not, if there was someone at my parish like that, I would no longer attend. It is a very sad situation but it's just not acceptable. He grabbed a teenage girl and forced her on his lap? He should not be in the Church. I mean, are you saying that the entire parish should just deal with it?[/quote]


So because he has a mental handicap we should just forfit his salvation. WHat's more important, someone accidently exposing himself and upsetting parishoners or the person's immortal soul?

[havok579257]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1588613' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:40 PM']Yes; we all realize this. It's a tragedy that he has this condition - no one is arguing that it isn't. Alternatives were offered, the mother didn't like them. I'm sorry, but when I'm worshipping my Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I don't want that desecrated by someone urinating in the House of God, mentally retarded or not. I mean, that's not the same as, say, the tics exhibited by Tourette's sufferers. Not only is his behaviour distracting and (albeit it unintentionally) irreverent, at his size, he is dangerous to other parishioners (and has acted out and injured other church-goers in the past, if I recall correctly). It's not that the Lord doesn't love him as he loves all his flock, but I really don't think it's fair to him nor the other members of the church if his mother puts him in a setting where he's expected to be still, quiet, and orderly for an hour or more. If the alternatives didn't please her, well, that was her choice.
Also, comparing autistic to the poor is fallacious and does not warrant a serious response.

Dear Liberals-At-Large:
You know that "separation of church and state" thing that you're always preaching to us about? Yeah, that goes both ways. Thanks.[/quote]

How does that work? When someone is screaming obsenities because of terrets that is not distracting but someone flayling their arms about is?

The comparison was never a compariosn, it was a statement of saying we ban this, so what do we ban next. Although like someone else pointed out, the article leaves out many facts so the statement went of misguided facts but ones I thought to be true from reading the article.

[havok579257]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1588617' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:44 PM']Yeah, let's put the bull in a china shop. Great idea.
Seriously? Put a 6 foot +, 225 lb guy in a room with a bunch of babies? Get real.

Also, ever heard of extraordinary ministers? They could bring the host to the mother at home or in the fellow ship hall, etc. I'm sure all of these issues could be worked around, but they require something that the mother has implicitly stated she doesn't want: work.[/quote]


Hence the need for one of two ushers and the mom as I stated above. If the two strongest usher can not control one person along with the mother's help then there is a problem. I am referring only to them controlling him hitting other people and not other actions like screaming and throwing his arms about but not hitting anyone.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588602' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:30 PM']Definatly against the home masses or live feeds as with live feeds there is no communion. Which our mass is basically built around.[/quote]

Communion was offered in both situations... unless you mean communion with other parishoners, which is NOT what mass is built around.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588621' date='Jul 1 2008, 07:50 PM']How does that work? When someone is screaming obsenities because of terrets that is not distracting but someone flayling their arms about is?

The comparison was never a compariosn, it was a statement of saying we ban this, so what do we ban next. Although like someone else pointed out, the article leaves out many facts so the statement went of misguided facts but ones I thought to be true from reading the article.[/quote]
That would be equally distracting; however that's something that's not physically harmful to others and thus could be left in a cry room.

But the thing is - they're not banning all mentally retarded people. They're banning one, [i]dangerous[/i] mentally retarded person. We've got parishioners with Down Syndrome at my parish - they're perfectly accepted as everyone else, because they don't take away from the mass. In fact, there's something very heartwarming about hearing them recite the creed with such faith and heartfeltedness. That's beside the point.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588623' date='Jul 1 2008, 07:52 PM']Hence the need for one of two ushers and the mom as I stated above. If the two strongest usher can not control one person along with the mother's help then there is a problem. I am referring only to them controlling him hitting other people and not other actions like screaming and throwing his arms about but not hitting anyone.[/quote]
So tell me how restraining a person via the brute force of two others is respecting his dignity? And by your formula, this is what would have to happen, because in one split second and one fell swoop, he could very easily kill one of the babies in the room. Tell me how this would be more advantageous than viewing the mass from an alternate location?

[Alycin]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588619' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:47 PM']So because he has a mental handicap we should just forfit his salvation. WHat's more important, someone accidently exposing himself and upsetting parishoners or the person's immortal soul?[/quote]

False Dichotomies again?

lol.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588619' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:47 PM']So because he has a mental handicap we should just forfit his salvation. WHat's more important, someone accidently exposing himself and upsetting parishoners or the person's immortal soul?[/quote]
So... masses in one's home are less salvific than masses in church?

[mortify]

This reminds me a similar incident where a young girl was allergic to wheat, and so her parents requested that the Hosts be made of a different material, something that obviously can't be done. The family made a big deal about it even though there are other options, such as giving her a drop of the precious Blood. The similarity I see in both cases are stubborn parents. The parish priest and the judge both decided there are reasonable reasons to exclude this boy from the Mass, it's not like the community didn't offer alternatives (having a private mass said at home is pretty convenient!) and so the parents should just accept it.

Edited July 2, 2008 by mortify

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588619' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:47 PM']So because he has a mental handicap we should just forfit his salvation. WHat's more important, someone accidently exposing himself and upsetting parishoners or the person's immortal soul?[/quote]

I never, ever said or even implied that we should "forfit his salvation."

In fact, I feel that he should watch Mass at home on the television and then get visited by a Eucharistic Minister.

[XIX]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1588643' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:14 PM']False Dichotomies again?

lol.[/quote]
Well played.

[havok579257]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1588634' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:04 PM']That would be equally distracting; however that's something that's not physically harmful to others and thus could be left in a cry room.

But the thing is - they're not banning all mentally retarded people. They're banning one, [i]dangerous[/i] mentally retarded person. We've got parishioners with Down Syndrome at my parish - they're perfectly accepted as everyone else, because they don't take away from the mass. In fact, there's something very heartwarming about hearing them recite the creed with such faith and heartfeltedness. That's beside the point.
So tell me how restraining a person via the brute force of two others is respecting his dignity? And by your formula, this is what would have to happen, because in one split second and one fell swoop, he could very easily kill one of the babies in the room. Tell me how this would be more advantageous than viewing the mass from an alternate location?[/quote]


In one second he could fly ACROSS the room and kill a baby? How hard is it for people with babies to not sit by the person in the cry room. Your telling me that 2 men would sit there and watch as the person went across the room and kill the baby. More to the point, why bring up killing babies? He's been in mass before and has not killed anyone yet you jump to this conclusion? WHy?