Boy with autism barred from attending church
May 19th, 2008From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
The Church of St. Joseph, a Catholic church in rural Bertha, Minnesota, has filed court papers to bar a teenage boy with autism from attending services. The Rev. Daniel Walz said 13-year-old Adam Race has displayed dangerous behavior during Mass. The young man’s parents, John and Carol Race, are contesting the church’s actions as discriminatory.
Walz, the church’s pastor for three years, said in an affidavit that as Adam has grown, the situation has worsened, and the boy has been “extremely disruptive and dangerous” since last summer.
Walz alleges that Adam struck a child during mass and has nearly knocked elderly people over when he abruptly bolts from church. He also spits and sometimes urinates in church and fights efforts to restrain him, Walz wrote.
The pastor wrote that Adam’s parents often sit on him during mass to restrain him, and sometimes bind his hands and feet, pulling a rope under the pew so his father can control the line from behind.
Carol Race said the family has tried to contain their son, and sometimes binds his hands and feet to calm him. She said no one had complained about Adam previously.
“(Rev. Walz) said that we did not discipline our son. He said that our son was physically out of control and a danger to everyone at church,” she said. “I can’t discipline him out of his autism, and I think that’s what our priest is expecting.”
Our RSS Feed
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
There has been a lot of unwarranted speculation on a lot of websites. The accusations in the restraining order are extreme exaggerations, according to the mother Carol Race, who I know. Many toddlers, preschools and seniors are occasionally incontinent, but you wouldn’t say they are “urinating in church,” leading people think they are pulling down their pants and peeing in the aisles.
Discrimination laws will define what is “disruptive” and “annoying” to what is “crimininal”. Carol Race said that only one time Adam struck a child in mass. Is this criminal? or in the normal realm or what children can do.
Despite his size, he’s 13 years old and developmentally delayed. Obviously that’s no excuse for injuring someone, but who has Adam injured?
I have a son with autism and in this past week, he was hit in the head with a rock thrown by a “neurotypical” child. The child did not get into trouble, but I had to put a cold pack on my son’s head. Later, my son accidentally hit a classmate with his lunch bag, had to apologize and go to the principal’s office for a “fix-it” plan. Parents of children with autism do not use it as an excuse for disruptive behavior.
Many churches of many denominations have already developed plans and programs so special needs members and their families can participate without being banished from church ceremony.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:24 am
This isn’t a kid just making a few noises. According to AP, “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 disruptive 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?