Priest Files Restraining Order Against Parents of Autistic 13-year-old
This story about a Catholic priest filing a restraining order against the parents of an autistic 13-year-old to keep them from attending church on Sundays in Bertha, Minnesota, is why resources like this are more than needed—-and a spirit of inclusion and mutuality.
Tags: asd, asperger, autism, autism blog, catholic, catholicism, inclusion, mother, pdd-nos, priest, Religion, restraining order, teacherRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Disability Rights, Religion
332 opinions for Priest Files Restraining Order Against Parents of Autistic 13-year-old
Joseph
May 17, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I wonder why they feel the child’s behavior poses a danger. There were no indications in the article that the child had been violent in the past. Sounds like they are simply afraid because of his appearance and way of being. And that is definitely discriminatory.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
That’s my reading of it too—-the articles kept emphasizing the child’s size and weight as if those should be grounds for him being “threatening” or some such.
Billiken
May 17, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Wow. So much for “Suffer the children to come to me”. Fortunately, we have found a parish with priests that understand the effects of our daughter’s autism a little better, working towards a first communion. Shameful
Club 166
May 18, 2008 at 12:56 am
It would appear that this priest needs to go back and read the Bible a bit, in order to remember what he needs to do to be considered a Christian.
Joe
C. S. Wyatt
May 18, 2008 at 1:59 am
This story is news on local talk radio, on TV, and in the papers. The problems were mounting for some time. Parishioners were shocked, and I believe with apparent good cause, at the two reported incidents with cars and the grabbing of a young lady by the boy.
Local media have interviewed several members of the church, with quite similar stories. Either the entire church is lying / paranoid, or there is a problem.
I honestly doubt the people interviewed by WCCO, KTSP, KTLK, et al, are lying to hurt this young man and his family.
The church officials are refusing comment, which I understand from a legal perspective. However, the membership seems quite unified that there is a problem and the parents were not addressing it well.
I think it is impossible to know who is “right” in this instance, but I certainly have questions based on the reporting we are seeing and hearing locally.
At the last presentation I gave a young man with autism said he was involved in a “legal misunderstanding” after grabbing a girl. The boy said his school was also facing a potential lawsuit. Trust me, that’s not the sort of misunderstanding a church wants.
– from Minnesota
(I tried to respond via my iPod… but that didn’t seem to take.)
Andrea
May 18, 2008 at 8:13 am
It seems to me that one factor is a lack of understanding on the part of the parishoners and the priest. Honestly, I think it is part of his responsibility to gain that understanding of things like the calming effects of deep pressure in order to help these members of his parish instead of treating them like irresponsible pariahs. We’ve avoided taking our children to church because we fear similar situations - that people will just not get it. The church we’d attend has a great religious education program during services, but I couldn’t dream of leaving him for over an hour.
Thanks, by the way for posting the info about that publication the other day!
Club 166
May 18, 2008 at 8:24 am
Just because the media report something doesn’t make it so. And just because the majority of parishioners can’t see past the “scary big weird kid” is no reason to think that their perspective is correct.
Shame on them all.
Joe
TomsMom
May 18, 2008 at 9:59 am
This may sound odd but I can see why some folks–ignorant of autism–would be intimidated by Adam. I expect that folks will be intimidated by Tom as well, who is big for his age (6) and likely to tower over both parents by the time he’s 13. (At the moment, Tom’s capacity for self-regulation runs about 1/2 hour; as a result he has not made it through an entire service as yet, and he will most certainly require quite a bit of accommodation in religious education classes and sacrament initiation most probably, my presence throughout!)
That being said, I sense that there has been a major breakdown in communication between parents and parish. I do not agree at all with the pastor’s choice of legal action, and I suspect that the “accommodations” (not specified) offered and the parents “rejected” were similarly isolating/ostracizing. On the other hand, I find it surprising that the parents claim to have had no negative feedback from their fellow parishioners–it’s just not believable. Somebody’s complaining, and I suspect putting lots of pressure on the pastor. He should not be taking sides in this but bringing the complainers and the family together to discussion the situation, IMHO.
Education is the best way to conquer fear and misunderstanding: and it’s not going to help everyone so that pastor had better be prepared to “lose” some congregants who simply won’t adapt. Accommodation also runs both ways: although from the family’s point of view it is reasonable and efficacious for the parents to sit on their 13-year-old son during a service, it’s going to disturb some people to witness that. Plus, as he grows, will it continue to be an option?
passionlessDrone
May 18, 2008 at 10:53 am
Why don’t they all just pray real hard to see if God can make it so that the child can get through a service?
Chris Gennaula
May 18, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I honestly believe that a disruptive child at a mass is not disruptive in the eyes of God. I also know that judgmental stares during a service can escalate behaviors.
From the Star Tribune article: “The Races and their five children typically sat in either the church’s cry room or in the back pew to avoid disrupting other parishioners since they began attending in 1996, according to Carol Race.”
Compassion is needed here. The Star Tribune article suggest that some of the incidences are being blown out of proportion.
liquid zeolite
May 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm
What happens to someone who makes noise and causes a scene at the library? They’re kicked out or asked to leave as most there would like to be able to concentrate, reflect, etc. Same thing for church. People don’t go to the library or church to hear or watch an out of control child. I blame the parents of the Autistic child. They have to realize that their child’s condition excludes them from certain activities. Church, Opera, live performances, etc. They’ll be asked to leave so that the others who are attending can enjoy the performance without interruption. The nerve of this family to press the issue is beyond me and suggests they’re autistic as well.
Linda
May 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The church and the priest could not have handled things worse. The priest at the very least should model compassion and understanding. The parents are not the problem nor is Adam. Church should be a place they can receive unconditional love. Appalling.
And, the church goers should mind their own business and remember to “Judge not” and “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Regan
May 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Apparently there’s a strong difference of opinion.
I was going to suggest that this looks like a situation where a good mediator might be of use, but it seems that that was also an unacceptable option. At this point it seems like the court is going to have to unfortunately sort it out.
The question I have is–does Adam want to be at service in the current form and is the sacrament meaningful to him? Are the alternatives as black or white as drawn on either side? We seem to be arguing rights, but he is the person at the center.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Thanks to CS Wyatt for all that background.
When he visited the US back in April, Pope Benedict made a “statement to disabled children:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/pontiff_blesses_disabled_child.html
I think that legal action was not necessary. A mediator could certainly have helped the situation and, of course, more education of all parties prior to things getting to this point.
nhokkanen
May 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I know the mom. She loves her son. She works hard to understand him, keep him safe, healthy and comfortable.
She has a complicated balancing act. She has worked hard to keep fellow churchgoers safe. Where I work, an elderly woman is hospitalized because a neurotypical person knocked her down at church.
The mom is listed on the Neurodiversity site for winning a Diocese inclusion advocacy award in 2005… the same year the new priest came to her church.
The mom knows theology. She asks for Christians to open their minds and hearts.
She has written a rebuttal to the statements made in the priest’s restraining order. Many situations were misinterpreted because he doesn’t understand autism, and is probably under pressure by passive-aggressive “Minnesota Nice” congregants.
Perhaps this flashpoint could have been avoided if fellow Christians had simply asked, “How can I help you?”
Jen
May 18, 2008 at 6:24 pm
According to my understanding of the catholic faith (to which my partner belongs, but I do not, so apologize to anyone if I have misunderstood or give offense) is that you are obligated to attend mass and receive the sacrament of communion. Therefore, the priest is denying this child/young man the right to be in a state of grace, by denying him the right to receive communion. What sin has this child committed (other than having autism) that warrants his being excommunicated? Because that’s essentially what this priest’s actions have accomplished.
Redtown
May 18, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Let’s be real here.
“….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 and….There were people… who could have been injured or killed…”
Adam’s parents call his banning from the church “discriminatory”. You bet it is. There’s such a thing as RATIONAL discrimination.
Of course, “Some disability advocates are getting behind the Races,” just going to show that there’s no end to Political Correctness, all public safety and common sense be damned.
We’re not talking about general discrimination against all handicapped people here, but just a particular individual with dangerous and disruptive behavior.
Some people have cited the Bible and God’s love of everyone. But what would Jesus have actually done in this situation? He probably would have affected a miracle cure of Adam by “driving out his demons.”
Unless this church can affect such a miracle cure, is it unreasonable to ask Adam’s parents to accomodate everyone else’s rights to public safety and undisrupted worship? As it is, it seems they’re more set on making a political point.
Joseph
May 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm
The nerve of this family to press the issue is beyond me and suggests they’re autistic as well.
Liquid Zeoline: At least this time around your comment did not consist of off-topic spam, aside from your handle.
Please refrain from using ‘autistic’ as an ad-hominem attack. That is completely bigotted on your part.
Emily
May 18, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Don’t feed the trolls.
Marla
May 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Truly awful. Discrmination indeed.
Autismville
May 18, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Thank you for the quote from Pope Benedict. Says it all…
Regan
May 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm
National Catholic Partnership on Disability
(Also other links to other topics)
The Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities was approved by the general membership of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on June 16, 1995.
http://www.ncpd.org/Sacramental%20Guidelines.htm
waxhaw5
May 18, 2008 at 9:37 pm
As a Catholic with an autistic child, I am freaked out by this (!) though comforted by the knowledge that our pastor would never act in this way. We have a wonderful sped program for Faith Formation, and had a special mass just for our kids yesterday, which was FUN! I will admit, however, that until then, I had not taken my son to mass since he was tiny because I was worried about how it would go, so I have to give this family a lot of credit for going where I dare not tread. After yesterday’s mass, I was emboldened to consider going weekly, thinking that the repetition would lead to constantly more appropriate behavior. (It’s a huge church, nobody would notice one child yelling, “Don’t kill me!” during reflection, right?)
In the MN instance, the priest (or an extraordinary minister) should be happy to administer The Sacrament at the parishoners’ home since they are “unable” to attend mass (due to his legal work). I’m sure this poor woman is holding her breath on that one.
Regan
May 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Followup on http://www.startribune.com/local/19059069.html?page=1&c=ythese events
It all sounded pretty straightforward, until this quote,
“…Adam’s parents sometimes tie his hands and feet with fabric restraints, which (Carol) Race said is a technique used by other families and school personnel who work with autistic children…”
I hope that they can resolve this in a matter which can be positive for Adam, the family, and the congregation, but I take exception with the above statement. I think it’s appropriate to talk about what choices they have made for their son, their particular circumstances and their choices, but I would prefer that Mrs. Race not extrapolate mechanical restraint as a technique necessarily appropriate to autistic individuals, and suggesting that it might represent routine practice, esp. in a public context. I sincerely hope the statement was taken out of context, but if not, my critique stands.
retiredwaif
May 18, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Faith issues and autism are a fairly heavy combination. Bad memories.
I remember finding the RCIA classes at the university so distressing (due to the antics of a religious educator who was gone the next year–I should have waited until 2006 to get religion!) that I was literally unable to attend, and another solution had to be found. In the end, it was an isolating solution, and left the impression that I wasn’t doing the “real” RCIA, and gave me very little preparation for the actual rituals and ceremonies involved, which resulted in my skipping most of them. To this day I feel I had a pretty piecemeal, barely-valid Catholic confirmation.
I’m a small, soft-spoken woman who is “high-functioning” enough to pass under the radar most of the time, yet I was constantly told that my issues were “disruptive.” I repeatedly requested one simple accommodation: to be told specifically what would happen at a given class or event, in advance. Week after week, things happened unexpectedly (”Now we’re taking everyone’s picture for a poster!” “Now we’re all getting up in front of everyone at Mass!” “Now we’re going to take turns standing in front of the room and talking about our faith!”) that I could have completely dealt with had I known about them. Instead, I would feel blindsided every week, particularly considering that any stimmy sort of behavior–completely necessary in those situations–would be called “disruptive” and called attention to (we’re talking about little things like rocking, or folding paper).
I missed every major RCIA event, with the exception of the confirmation itself, at which I was a complete crying nonverbal mess who essentially had to be guided through things, all due to this woman’s inability to let me know what would happen. She also, I later found out, did a lot of asking around as to what was “wrong” with me and if she “had to” include me in RCIA. Bitch.
I made damn sure not to be in that situation again at my wedding; picture me sitting with the Rite of Marriage book, making up a social story. ;-) It turned out all right.
My point is that one doesn’t have to look very far to find insensitivity to people on the spectrum in what I believe we now call “faith communities.” I have no idea what is going on with Adam’s parents, their cloth restraints, or these old people who keep getting knocked down in churches. I do know of more than one church where someone in charge has smugly declared them to be “exempt from the ADA!” a statement that is nearly unequalled for sheer missing-the-point. Religiously speaking, morally speaking, and otherwise.
Kristina, you’re right to be concerned. Autistic males, in today’s climate, are often seen as soulless monsters, tragedies who need restraint. Women, who are littler, get less of this, but from what little I’ve experienced, I can only imagine its impact on a boy.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 18, 2008 at 10:13 pm
The use of any kind of physical or mechanical restraint needs to be considered and applied very carefully and, of course, with the individual circumstances very much in mind. That said, I more than share Regan’s concerns.
I have been viewing this issue of the priest’s filing a restraining order and the Races’ son’s presence in their parish church in terms of social justice. Because it is a religious house of worship that is under discussion here, I think that the ethical issues of inclusion and equality and acceptance are more in play than ever and I am very uncertain as to the priest’s need to take legal action.
Being myself a parent who has tried with mixed results to take my son to church, I fully understand the difficulties that the Races have gone through. Most recently, we have sought to prepare Charlie to attend church by careful and structured teaching—a slow process.
Bonnie Sayers
May 18, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I saw a quick segment on the news this morning on this. I think the comment by Regan is the one to focus on. Does this boy understand going to church and does he want to be there. IS the boy verbal?
mayfly
May 18, 2008 at 10:46 pm
This is a hard situation. Being part of the body of the church is so important. Did they try having an assigned seating near exits, perhaps in chairs separated from the pews? Perhaps the parents could take their son outside at the first sign of trouble for how long it takes before rejoining the service. Did the clergy talk about visiting the family as part of their pastoral duties? Was their any effort by the parishioners to include the family in activities outside of church?
Chuck
May 18, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“Does this boy understand going to church and does he want to be there. IS the boy verbal?”
The second question you asked is irrelevant to the first question you asked.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 18, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I think they’re questions that need to be asked as we try to figure out what is going on here.
From KSTP.com,
Susan M. Bersee
May 19, 2008 at 12:44 am
These comments hit very close to home for my family. We had stopped attending church because our youngest son with Autism could not manage. Then we found a church in our faith that started using their basement as a ” special needs area” with couches, area rugs on the floor so families could attend church via telemonitor. Low lighting, lower sound and other parents that understood our issues. We only go when he is having a good day, we don’t want to disrupt. Our son is also a very big 8 yr old and can get out of control at times. I hope more churches take the idea that there are other ways for families of special needs children to attend church in a way that is comfortable for everyone.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Why can’t a high-5 be a sacrament?”
A theology professor brought this up to us once.
Goof to hear that there is a way that your son can attend church—-hope different ways continue to be found. Very best—–
superpanda
May 19, 2008 at 5:19 am
My pastor’s grandson has autism, so it is not a problem for special needs to attend the church. They have very good Sunday school programs and my 5.5 yrs old autistic son loves to go there!
Kathy
May 19, 2008 at 8:00 am
I too, can identify with this situation.
We have a seven year old autistic boy.
When he was a baby we took him to mass as a family.As he got older however, he became harder to control, and would shout out loud, such lines as, ” We go home now!” at solemn moments, eg the consecration.
As he had no real understanding of the mass
and served only to distract and disrupt the congregation my husband and I decided not to take him anymore.
My husband and my daughter attend the 7.30am mass, whilst I attend the 9.30am one.
I hasten to add, no one influenced our decision, and fellow parishioners were very sympathetic and understanding to our plight, as was the parish priest.
However Mark would run up and down the aisles, and even up to the altar at inappropriate times.
From my observations, it was plain to see that Mark was disrupting people from praying and focusing on the transubstantiation, the crux of the mass.
Sometimes one needs peace and quiet to contemplate and to pray.I know I certainly appreciate my time alone at mass.
I have witnessed many a parent removing their boisterous child from the pew and taking them outside for the remainder of the service so as not to disturb and disrupt the rest of the congregation.
Having said my bit, I do believe it was wrong of the parish priest to obtain a restraining order. Perhaps he lacked the necessary people skills(as well as a lack of understanding of autism)to engage in a positive way with the family, and should have engaged some professional help.
Seems like a bit of empathy and understanding from both sides would not go astray.
The fact that six foot Adam who weighs 225 pounds and has to, at times have his hands and feet bound, is to me very disconcerting, as I am sure it would be to fellow parishioners and their children at Adam’s church.
mayfly
May 19, 2008 at 8:47 am
Many of these stories of not being able to attend service due to an autistic child are similar to mine. The lack of even trying to accommodate special needs seems unfortunately very common.
It is good to hear there are churches out there which are devising ways to allow families with special needs to attend.
It would be nice to have a listing of churches who are accommodating.
My church, the Bay Area Christian Church, has been very accommodating of special needs. It’s head has a Down’s son and an autistic son. We are non-denominational and believe our Christian duties do not stop as soon as we sing the last hymn on Sunday.
Someone asked mockingly, “Why don’t they pray real hard?” thus displaying a heart in need of change. They should indeed pray. God often does not take away obstacles, but gives us better hearts to deal with them.
Emily
May 19, 2008 at 10:30 am
Better hearts, regardless of the giver, would be useful there. There’s something painfully hollow in that kind of mockery. Why think it? Why feel the need to express it in this context? Grasping at confirmation of self superiority, presumably. I’m glad, at least, to know that at least a few who walk among us have managed to divine all that there is to know about the universe and can freely mock others, comfortable in their unassailable pre-eminence. Perhaps someday, they’ll stoop to sharing that knowledge with the rest of us.
Regarding this situation: I don’t know whose “story” is right or wrong, given the tendencies of news reports and personal recollections, and it’s probably a matter of perspective as much as anything. But the priest was unquestionably wrong to obtain a restraining order against the family. Interesting of him to turn to the civil law when the church’s recent past involving its own pedophilia debacles is rife with decisions to “handle things within the church.” Why could that not have been the case here, when it would have been so much more apropos?
nhokkanen
May 19, 2008 at 10:41 am
After warning from sheriff, family of autistic teen attends different church
By LORA PABST, Star Tribune May 18, 2008
http://www.startribune.com/local/19059069.html
The mother of a 13-year-old autistic boy who was banned by a court order from attending services at a Roman Catholic church in Bertha, Minn., woke up Sunday determined to take her son to mass.
But Carol Race changed her mind when Todd County Sheriff Pete Mikkelson met her at the end of her driveway Sunday and told her she would be arrested if she brought her son, Adam, into the Church of St. Joseph.
Instead, Race took Adam and her four other children to mass at Christ the King Church in nearby Browerville, Minn. “It occurred to me that if I step foot in [St. Joseph], they will arrest me and I won’t end up going to mass anyway,” she said.
[continued at website]
My comment:
If the mom can handle her son… if another church can handle her son… why can’t the priest and some parishioners at St. Joseph’s?
nhokkanen
May 19, 2008 at 10:44 am
Kristina, I’d like to send you the mother’s two letters to media. The second explains particulars in the restraining order, and the priest’s misinterpretations of her son’s behaviors.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 11:00 am
@nhokkanen,
I’d appreciate it if you would—-you can email me at:
kchew [at] spc [dot] edu
Channon
May 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm
My guess is that the Race family doesn’t give enough $$ to the church. I bet if they were big contributers then the priest would find a way.
C. S. Wyatt
May 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm
From the story, and something discussed more on local radio:
The CEM and CFS did confirm to KSTP that they tried to offer mediation and alternatives. The expressed concern was, and this is a litigious state, that the boy might get hurt in church and the church would be held liable.
I know we’d like a perfect world of tolerance, but if the “pressure” on the boy caused harm to him, or if he even accidentally harmed someone else, the church would definitely (without any doubt in my mind) be sued.
I deal with similar issues at the university level. Having a meltdown is not covered by ADA. Other students can and will file formal complaints. Some have threatened legal action against schools for not proving a “safe environment” and there are documented legal actions against HFA individuals — which is why we have books explaining that some things are always “wrong” and even illegal in public settings.
I admit my own anti-religion bias, but this is a case of an organization trying to prevent a problem. We might not like that it is necessary, but what if you are the family member of an elderly person who gets accidentally harmed in the future? We’d all like to say, “I’d never sue!” but anger makes people take action.
I’m sorry, but the church is in a no-win situation: legal risks, moral imperatives, and divided congregation. One of the Catholic groups mentioned special options exist for the disabled. Not being religious, I’m not sure I understand this. But, if it makes the family happy… work within the church system.
No one is completely without blame in this case, but it sure seems the church organizations were present and involved.
If they are lying, and the mother is not, then why even want to be a part of the religion? Find a place that’s more rewarding…
For me, on Sundays that happens to be a grill, some burgers, and sunshine above. All the “church” I need to be content.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm
This is a press release from Carol Race.
————————–
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 17, 2008 Contact: Carol Race 218-738-5773
Mother of boy with autism barred from mass
corrects statements from priest & Diocese
The Minneapolis Star Tribune‘s May 17 cover story featured Carol Race and family of Eagle Bend, Minnesota, with a 4-column headline reading “Church bars severely autistic boy from mass.” On May 9 the Races’ parish priest had taken out a restraining order against 13-year-old Adam, who has autism. This past Thursday Carol Race was issued a citation because she attended Mother’s Day mass with him.
Subsequent articles on the Races in newspapers, TV and radio also ran statements from the Diocese of St. Cloud on behalf of the Church of St. Joseph in Bertha. Race disagrees with Fr. Dan Walz’s second-hand descriptions, and wrote a counter statement explaining her son’s behaviors in the context of autism.
· 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: Julia had been living in our home for six months. She accepted Adam and understood his ways. Fr. Walz misinterpreted the incident he described. Julia 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 Julia 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. I spoke with Rose Hawkins of ASA International, who is willing to answer any questions about Julia. Her phone is 320-732-6075.
· 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.
Emily
May 19, 2008 at 5:15 pm
” 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.”
Very sad that he would be excluded from this just because people are uncomfortable. It is my opinion that your church should treat you like family, and the leader of this church seems to have no interest in that whatsoever.
Storkdok
May 19, 2008 at 6:13 pm
He probably would have affected a miracle cure of Adam by “driving out his demons.”
Redtown, why would you even mention something like this? Don’t you know about the children who have been killed because the “demon of autism” was being “exorcised” from them?
Autism is not “possession” by “demons”. Your comments are as offensive as the comments by the two Troll regulars, pD and LZ.
Reen
May 19, 2008 at 9:10 pm
To call this a case of discrimination against someone with autism is wrong. This is a debate over peoples’ rights to worship in a safe environment. While all the behaviors may be typical of someone with autism, his size makes it more dangerous for those around him. By all accounts, the church has offered alternatives (closed circuit tv, private mass, etc.). All of this was rejected by the family because the mother said it was her right to attend mass on Sunday. But a society must balance the rights of all. The sad fact is that we live in an overly litigious society. If someone was hurt by this boy, the church would be the first party sued. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the church would ban someone just because someone is “uncomfortable”. One can be compassionate, inclusive, and respectful of all human life and come to the conclusion that this boy’s behavior makes it disruptive and dangerous for others to practice their faith.
Emily
May 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Whatever. The point here anyway appears to be that the only crime this boy has committed is being large, loud, and scary…he hasn’t actually done anything, it would seem, to a parishioner that would warrant his exclusion from the church, or litigation. And then there’s that whole irony of the church itself cloaking its pedophile priests under the mantel of “church authority” rather than turning to civil and criminal authorities to deal with all of the real, lasting damage done by its servants–yet, it’s OK to run to the sheriff when a boy in the congregation makes a lot of noise.
The priest involved refers to “mediation” to keep these people from attending church…and please, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that completely missing the whole point of “mediation”? His sole intention with “mediation” appears to have been to keep them out of church, not to compromise.
Large, loud autistic children and adults scare people. But that doesn’t mean that they’re actually going to do something to you. From what the mother says in the press release, the priest involved has gone out of his way to place what has happened with this boy in the worst possible light, accusing him in the order of “urinating” in the church–which unquestionably is intended to imply dropping trou and committing blasphemy, rather than the enuresis the mother describes–and to otherwise exaggerate events. Regardless of who’s right or wrong about whether or not this boy should be in church, the priest went too far in going to the civil authorities and coming close to having this woman arrested on Mother’s Day, for God’s sake. Very priestly, that.
Just FYI, Jesus went among and touched the sick and dying, and he willingly placed himself in contact with people who suffered from “demons,” rather than shunning them as all others did. This entire debacle does not strike me as very Christlike. It sounds to me like this priest has a problem, and it’s not the autistic boy in his congregation. Regardless of what the boy has done or what the litigious possibilities are, this Fr mishandled the entire situation egregiously.
Storkdok
May 19, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I hope Carol Race and her family will be able to find a truly loving and accepting church that embodies the true spirit of God, one of loving acceptance, not just tolerance, but real love, the kind Jesus showed for the outcasts of his day.
Reen
May 19, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Emily says “regardless who is right and who is wrong” and then goes on to blame the priest. Do you really think the priest acted unilaterally in making the decision to file a restraining order? What about Carol Race’s responsibility in all of this? Many parents have posted comments that they have voluntarily taken themselves out of situations that would disrupt others. Parents of ALL children have done this! This isn’t just about disruption. There are several incidents cited that could have resulted in serious injury, including him jumping into the car and revving the engine at full speed. If he had hit the gear shift, there would have been serious injuries. We have heard a lot from Carol Race and now are just starting to hear from others in that community. Living in MN, we are getting a lot of news on this. Adam Race has a history of violent behavior. He also has crashed the family car. It is sad and it must be unbearable for the family, but that is not a good enough reason to risk others safety. Nobody has the right to not be offended or uncomfortable, but that is not what we are talking about here. Something needed to be done when his parents could not control him from coming into physical contact with others. They refused any other means of accomodation. Emily, while throwing out barbs at the Catholic church may make you feel better, it only takes away from the real debate here, which is whether this boy poses a danger to those around him. The priest and many in the parish are saying he does and his mom is saying he doesn’t.
mom of 7
May 19, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I’m so sorry this has come to this.
I don’t understand Mom’s statement that there have been no issues within the church for several months and glossing over the danger to many the parking lot about his escape from their control though.
The restraining order was within weeks of that incident-I can’t help but think that was the catalyst. Not someone else’s lack of understanding of Autism but the expert/parent in the situation. The original care plan-always leave 1st was flawed.
Maybe I’m not understanding this issue, but I have years of making care plans for severely disturbed individuals to help accomodate their needs.
Could not the family of the son have been “last” instead of “first” out of church.(the closing song could at any time be omitted at a service)
Couldn’t the safest option for all involved have been that from the start? We leave last-we love mass soooo much we want to stay as long as we can-we say rosary while the sancturary empties? That way no matter what little changes happen in a service the routine would be constant.
Isn’t the most humane to that child as well as everyone else to think outside the box of what’s best or easiest for 1 person may not always work if it relies on 1 constancy (a specific song)
I’m really sorry but it’s the primary caregiver’s job to be enough in awareness of a situation that a disabled teen does not get behind the wheel of a running car in a crowded parking lot EVER. That’s not safe for anyone, the disabled person, the crowd or the caregiver.
When making care plans for my patients I had to think what if what i’m building this around changes-I sit next to so and so they could be gone, this is MY CHAIR (the chair can break) another patient needs that position because of a strangely positioned brace on their chair etc etc
The world around a disabled person is not always going to perfectly accomodating even when others try dilligently or have plans to be accomodating. Expecting it to be 100% constant is unrealistic and we have to be on guard when the constancy is disrupted and go to plan b.
And we live in a world with a variety of people with disabilities and sometimes their needs conflict. We all have to figure out how to meet everyone’s needs.
When the safety of the disabled person and the safety of everyone else is on the line we have to think long and hard-this is the dangerous situation: fragile elders/small children transversing crowded aisles and busy lots-sensory stimulated disabled person needs to enter and exit. A care plan based upon leaving 1st based upon 1 cue leaves too many cases where disaster could happen-cue missed or omitted, another fragile person is unaware that the aisles need to be open for the 1 family only, the list of disasterous variables is too long to list.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
It’s the priest who filed the restraining order—who took litigious action.
From what Carol Race wrote in her statement, there are different versions of events and differing perceptions of them.
I would say, the real debate is the message that is being communicated about true inclusion of all, keeping in mind the meaning of “Catholic”—from the Greek kath’olou, meaning “universal.”
Kathy
May 19, 2008 at 10:41 pm
The use of restraints on Adam really bothers me, though.
This from the Autism National Comittee:
“Although any one of us disabled or not, may at some point in our lives need to be restrained on an emergency basis, that should only occur when there is substantial threat of injury to self and others. Behavioral restraints are neither treatment nor education.They are merely procedures or methods that restrict freedom of choice and adversely affect the human development of people with disabilities. The use of restraints should be considered a failure in treatment.”
The family are obviously trying their best to help Adam! However, I am of the opinion that an alternative(to the use of restraints) should be sought to deal with his behavioral issues.It concerns me that Adam may possibly suffer detrimental effects to his psyche, as a result of the use of these restraints.
Redtown
May 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm
To Storkdok,
Don’t be so self-righteously offended. I put “driving out demons” in quotation marks because that’s how the people of Jesus’ time thought he’d accomplished some of his healings. I was neither suggesting that autism is demonic possession or advocating exorcisms.
My larger point was to answer those who say that the church should tolerate this boy’s dangerous behavior because Jesus never turned anyone away. Most of us lack Jesus’ powers of miraculous healings, and are left to more ordinary means to respond to the situation. I doubt that even Jesus would have advised enabling dangerous and disruptive behavior — posing risks to others and self — in the name of “acceptance”.
Reen
May 19, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Most of the accounts are coming straight from the mom. Carol Race may not be the most objective in this situation. So many are quick to take everything she says at face value. What might not seem dangerous to her, may seem very dangerous to others. The church resorted to a restraining order after she refused any attempts to alternative worship. I am not saying that a restraining order was the right way to procede, but please don’t make this into a Autism rights case. The church has no vested interest in singling out someone with autism. I am a member of the Catholic church and as a parish, we reach out to everyone. However, if someone’s behavior precludes them from being part of the larger congregation, then I think it is the church’s responsibility to make alternative arrangements for that person to practice their faith, which the church did. Accounts are now coming out from the community that the parents can barely control their son. How many close calls need to occur before something is done? It also begs the question, what is Carol Race getting out of mass, when all her efforts are put into restraining her son? If she has to physically sit on her son to get him to calm down, it is a safe bet that she is no paying much attention to the homily.
Kristina Chew, PhD says that this is about “inclusion” of all. To what logical end??? People are excluded all the time to protect the masses.
We can debate about whether the boy is dangerous or not, but unless we are part of that congregation, do we really know the full story? I think to take the mom’s account of events is one sided.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Again, I refer back to the basic meaning of Catholic as “universal”—-meaning that all should be included, and there are ways for all to learn, grow, and change in the act of reaching out, especially those who are may be most in need.
Reen
May 19, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Kristina Chew, PhD, I think inclusion of all is a great and lofty goal. However, there is a moral responsibility to not expose others to unnecessary harm. The parents lost control of their son and he jumped into their car and another car and revved the engines. If that car would have been put into gear (which has happened with Adam Race before) and he would have run someone over, should the priest and the parents be consoled by the fact that they were only acting out of the spirit of universal inclusion? No harm, no foul, we were only trying to be inclusive.
C. S. Wyatt
May 19, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The priest in this case, according to the news tonight, asked for the restraining order after being told by members of the lay leadership (what is that? do they have regular members advise church leadership?) they wanted something to be done.
The priest supposedly checked with regional superiors (who are those? I’m not Catholic, so clueless in a land of Catholics and Lutherans) because this was an action likely to bring attention to the church.
In other words, the priest was apparently worried enough about the public relations that he hesitated… but still followed through.
Taking preventative measures is not the same as being litigious. So far this year I have been involved, very personally, in the legal maneuvers of my university after I had a seizure. Trust me, I understand how much I want to be included as a person with HFA and seizures… but in my case I had to settle for being excluded from a class because two students and a teacher felt I was a “risk” to their safety. (Not sure how, but I had to realize the university wasn’t about to fight and lose.)
The upside, I got an “easy A” in a class. The downside… was reminded that people fear me. Oh, well. Life goes on. I learned a lot about Minnesota-specific legal rights (and lack of rights). I’m a spoiled Californian, apparently.
Still, I have to side with caution. The boy has more of history we keep hearing about in local media. As someone else stated, it wasn’t his first two “joy rides” and might not have been his last. That’s really, really scary.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm
@Reen,
The Church is called to set a moral model here and its response has been imperfect. Again, I believe that the notion of “universality” is not being sufficiently recognized here.
@CS Wyatt,
Lots of discussions about Catholicism around here (as in my household). I’m not Catholic; my husband has written a lot about Catholicism in the US and the comments and discussion about this issue are unfolding in a very interesting manner.
I would say, the presence of a person who is different calls us to change.
(Perhaps my California roots show a little.)
Emily
May 20, 2008 at 12:07 am
Reen, observing an irony is not throwing out barbs; it’s observing an irony. I’ve got no dog in any hunt against the Catholic church. And when I said that regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong the priest could have acted more appropriately, that’s not blaming the priest; it’s expecting of someone in his position what ought to be expected. This does not seem to have been handled well, even if you completely believe all that the priest has asserted in the order. A for your assumptions about me, they’re wrong, but I don’t really care. Calmete. Are you related to the priest or something?
Emily
May 20, 2008 at 12:12 am
Mom of 7, that was well said.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 12:15 am
An article in the May 19th Star Tribune emphasizes the physical size of the Races’ son overly much. (And I write that as the mother of an autistic 11 year old son who is bigger than me.)
I’m going to start looking ahead and try to consider if, how, something affirming and constructive can come out of this. There’s been abundant examples from this case about what not to do but surely there are ways (as pointed out by mayfly and others more towards the beginning of this thread) to change and accommodate, on both sides.
Redtown
May 20, 2008 at 12:48 am
People mention the religious principle of universal acceptance. But I doubt that even Jesus would condone the enabling of 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 the pastor failed to do so, and some child or elderly person were injured, it would be a major moral failure and a major lawsuit.
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.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Autism is not, of course (as is TB), an infectious disease. Autistic children can be taught, and often much more than might first be thought. The question to me is what efforts might be made to help make attending church a welcoming experience for all.
William
May 20, 2008 at 4:16 am
Kristina Chew, PhD, you missed Redtowns’ point entirely.
Redtown was not comparing autism vs. TB.
Redtown was using TB as an analogy to “danger”.
A person with TB is “dangerous” to your health if you are in close contact with them.
Apparently the members of this church feel in “danger” of being harmed in a physical way by this man-sized child when “he is melting down” (His Mother’s words).
The boy’s mother also says, “Sometimes my husband and I need to restrict Adam’s movements to prevent him from hurting himself or his family who sit near him.”
THE MOTHER ADMITS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES, DURING CHURCH SERVICE, WHEN HE HAD TO BE RESTRAINED TO PREVENT HIM FROM PHYSICALLY HURTING THOSE AROUND HIM!
Doesn’t that say it all?
It’s not about autism. It’s not about church.
It’s about personal safety in public places.
Duh!
William
May 20, 2008 at 4:40 am
Chris Gennaula said “I honestly believe that a disruptive child at a mass is not disruptive in the eyes of God.”
Linda said, “The church and the priest could not have handled things worse. The priest at the very least should model compassion and understanding. The parents are not the problem nor is Adam. Church should be a place they can receive unconditional love.”
Chris and Linda, What planet do you live on?
Chris, can you distinguish the difference between church and Heaven?
Linda, where in this world do you find unconditional love? You aren’t showing unconditional love towards the Priest or the church.
The priest IS “modeling compassion and understanding” for all his other parishioners.
You know, the ones that show up for Mass, hoping they won’t be knocked down, spit or urinated on by some out of control 225 pound kid that is unable to control his body or emotions (because of a dreadful malady that he suffers from, not withstanding)
While you complain about the splinter in your brother’s eye, the 2×4 in your own eye could use some attention.
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 6:31 am
In a perfect world, everyone could gather together and worship as one. We don’t live in a perfect world! Based on several accounts, this boy has exhibited dangerous behavior. I can’t help but question the mother’s intentions here. People try to bring this down to a debate about acceptance of people with autism. This is not what it is about!!!!! The parish/priest has a moral (and legal) responsibility to protect its parishioners. There should be no dispute that this boy poses a danger to those around him, by his mom’s own admission. The Catholic Church was criticized for not bringing the law into deal with a small percentage of its priests who were abusing young people several years ago. Maybe they have learned something!
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 6:36 am
I would also like to say that Carol Race’s rights to worship on Sunday at Mass stop when her rights threaten/pose a danger to those around her. There are many options available for her, but she refuses all of them. Why? If you are going to church with a son that you have to use restraints on and sit on to control, you are not paying attention to the homily, you are not able to pray, etc.
Emily
May 20, 2008 at 9:59 am
Looks like some posters *do* have a dog in this hunt.
Bren
May 20, 2008 at 10:37 am
It seems like the issues are getting twisted into something they are not. This isn’t about the church discriminating against a person because he has autism. This is about a matter of safety. Carol Race said she has attended this church since 1996. I think I read that there were no issues until the past year or so. What has changed in that time? As her son grew into a big kid (6 ft, 225 pounds), the situation changed. It sounds like their son Adam has reached the age where the parents can no longer physically control him. While his actions have no violent intent, they do put others at risk. I am sure nobody likes the situation, but it is what it is! What would be wrong with a private mass, closed circuit TV, etc. If Carol Race’s true intention is to be a good Catholic and attend weekly mass, there are other ways she can do it without putting the rest of the congregation at risk.
mayfly
May 20, 2008 at 10:38 am
As more information has surfaced, it is apparent the clergy made great efforts to accommodate the family. This is good to hear. The family however refused them. Perhaps believing that even violent disrupting behaviors need to be tolerated if they stem from autism. Perhaps because they are being exhibited by their son.
In the church I attend which does so much for special needs, such behavior would not be tolerated either.
I wrote before about people needing a heart change. I meant both, but primarily the clergy. It now seems the family is in greater need.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 10:53 am
We can keep on debating about who is at fault most endlessly. BUt I hope that the next step (which would be more constructive) would be for all parties to think of how to change so that Adam might be able to attend church. In our experience, sometimes there is (despite many efforts) a lack of communication and understanding about accommodations. I would hope that positive strategies with a shared sense of dignity for all can result.
In regard to the parish having as, Reen wrote, a “moral…responsibility” to protect its petitioners and this of course includes Adam, whose feelings about this whole situation have not been part of this discussion.
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 10:53 am
Emily, not sure if your comment is directed at me…However, my only dog in this hunt is to keep the debate on the facts. This isn’t about discrimination of those with Autism. This is about safety. The incidents leading up to the Race’s being asked not to bring Adam to mass sound serious enough to raise the debate about whether he poses a risk to the others in the congregation. It sounds like many in the parish have weighed on the side that it does.
This isn’t a unique situation. Children are expelled from school all the time when their behavior becomes dangerous to those around them. The only difference is that this mom’s reaction was to go to the media, rather than try to come up with other accomodations.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 10:56 am
@Reen,
If I may ask (and please ignore this question if you wish to as it’s a bit off-topic)—-do you have an autistic family member or do you teach autistic children? Very best.
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 11:07 am
Kristina, you are right. I think the mom should try working with the church, rather than the media, to come up with a workable solution. I do, however, get the sense that unless he is allowed to participate fully in the Sunday mass, there is no workable solution for her. And it sounds like the parish has taken the stance that his presence at Sunday mass poses a danger to those around him. I am guessing that a small town church does not have endless resources to make perfect accomodations. It is unfortunate that they do not live in a city where economies of scale would make it easier to make accomodations.
I do disagree with you however, with your “moral responsibility”. Physical welfare should overrule feelings. How are his feelings affected by having his hands and feet bound, with the rope run through the pew so that his dad can control him from behind?
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 11:14 am
Kristina, I do not have an autistic child, but I do have a close friend who does. Yes, I have not walked a day in your shoes and I know, through my friend, that it isn’t easy. However, everyone has limitations, physical and emotional. In this case, Adam does not have the capacity to make it through weekly mass without putting others in the congregation at risk. I have a six year old who can barely make it through mass:) For years, I have taken her out when she became disruptive. If at any point her behavior could physically hurt others, I would stop bringing her. The fact that this became a debate on autism is wrong.
nhokkanen
May 20, 2008 at 11:22 am
People should re-read the mother’s press release posted above. They don’t use “rope.” The large smiling boy cavorting on TV clips doesn’t look abused at all.
If the mother and son are able to attend church elsewhere without incident, what does that say about the priest and his restraining order?
I assume that Adam Race’s mom and dad always sit on either side of their son. Have any of the other parishioners ever asked, “How can I help you?”
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 11:24 am
I think it is right for it to be a debate about autism and the inclusion of individuals with developmental disabilities. Churches and places of worship are some of the places that families who are in difficulty circumstances turn to for support and perhaps that is why there is so much discussion here. In this way the church has, if you will, the burden of being a place that people look to for guidance about morals and the response in this instance has been all the more puzzling.
I know that there are ways to help a child “be” in public places and, again, hopefully the parish and the family can start the work of seeking the best practices to help Adam be in church.
Very best wishes to your family and your friend, too—-
Jen
May 20, 2008 at 11:44 am
I’d have to side with the church on this one. From what I understand from other news sources, the two options the priest offered were: 1. he could come to the family’s home and conduct a private mass. 2. the family could sit in the library and watch the mass via a TV feed. I think those are both reasonable-the family receives the sacrament and religious instruction, and the member of the congregation are protected from Adam’s unpredictable and unsafe behavior. And, I do have a personal understanding of autism. My younger brother Daniel is a low functioning autistic man. He is generally sweet and lovable, but even his sweet and lovable can be dangerous. My father has endured years of pain and several back surgeries due to an out of control hug from my brother. Daniel did not want to hurt my father, but at the same time he could not control his own body, and he did hurt my father. We would not want this to happen to anybody else. We are careful about taking Daniel in public to avoid close physical contact with others and to avoid situations that would stress him out. For example, he loves going out to eat, but we only take him to buffet restaurants because he gets very upset if people around him are eating and he has to wait. We would never insist that Daniel must sit in a church service with everybody else–I don’t think he would sit still that long anyway.
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The reason I say this isn’t a debate about autism is that he was accepted at church since 1996. It wasn’t until some recent incidents that people started to become concerned. This likely coincided with him become large enough where it was difficult for his parents to physically control him. Obviously the parisioners had no issues with him being there for those first 11-12 years.
I think all should be allowed to participate at church, however, if they pose a danger to those around them, it is the church’s responsibility to protect its fellow members.
It seems that many on this site have the view that the church needed to make more of an effort. I don’t see any effort being made by the family. There are ways that the family could seek the support and guidance of the faith community without putting fellow parisioners at risk. Maybe it means the mom and dad going to different masses while Adam stays at home with the other parent. Kristina, you indicated in one of your previous posts that you have tried to take your son to church and you have worked at preparing him with a slow structured teaching process. This suggests that you would not bring your son to church if he was not ready. To me, it sounds like Adam is at a phase where he isn’t ready to be at church. This isn’t to say that it is permanent situation.
We need to be careful when we impugn the motives of others. So far, the only one really talking is the mom. I have heard some of the congregation comments on the local news, but the diocese cannot comment. Our society is quick to cry discrimination, however, I believe most people are very accepting and accomodating, especially the church. As I said before, maybe it is a resource issue since this is a very small town.
Chuck
May 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“As I said before, maybe it is a resource issue since this is a very small town.”
There is no need for any “resources” to resolve this issue other then compassion and understanding and it seems to be lacking at that church. My family went through literally a month of Sundays to get my son to attend mass without screaming and self-abusive behavior. Prior to our start we informed the priest that situations may arise but we felt this was a battle with our child that was important. Our priest agreed. At first we got some ugly stares from those around us. I would usually need to apply DEEP pressure to calm my son down. Many would ask questions during his meltdowns and I would respond to them to understand, relax, and tell others to do the same. Eventually the “regulars” go the message and I had enough allies that the behaviors subsided. I see little difference between Adam Race and my 180 pound 12 year old. The only difference between my family and theirs is a mis-guided priest who needs to find his way again.
Regan
May 20, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“In regard to the parish having as, Reen wrote, a “moral…responsibility” to protect its petitioners and this of course includes Adam, whose feelings about this whole situation have not been part of this discussion.”
—————————-
As a hypothetical, if Adam was fine with, or even preferred, a service at home, where would this stand?
Our region has adapted masses, which involve combined dioceses because of the resources involved–it is something quite a bit above and beyond the typical mass and allows such opportunities as altar boy service and performances within the service to engage attention and make it more concrete. There is also allowance for those who might find it difficult remaining quiet during the mass; and not necessarily doing so is expected and accepted. The feedback is that the special needs members look forward to the service and are fully members as contrasted with trying to fit in.
However there are some who feel that it is segregation. So, what do you do? Perhaps it is on a continuum to that full inclusion which is the ideal goal.
I contrast this discussion with some that have been on this blog about classroom placements and how some make a choice to have their children within specialized settings, even with a more mainstream placement available for the sake of more appropriate supports and accommodations. Just as placement is not a “place”, I would suggest that it is possible, not necessarily preferable, but possible, that the same paradigm might apply to other situations.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@Reen,
We have taken Charlie to church in the past, in other parishes. In our current parish (where we are living due to the school district’s services for Charlie), we did not find the current atmosphere welcoming for Charlie. A therapist has been studying for her Masters in ABA (applied behavior analysis) and has chosen as her project, to teach autistic children to attend Mass. She happens to live in the parish and has been taking him to church.
And this is off-topic; our reasons for not attending were for other reasons than Charlie’s needs.
I hope most of all that the situation for the Races at St Joseph’s can be turned into a learning experience for everyone!
Joy
May 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This is actually tougher than I thought. My first reaction was outrage and after pondering the situation for a few days and reading blog discussions, I have concluded that this is not an easy slam dunk for either side of the issue. Jesus was displeased with those who tried to keep the children away from him … those who seemed bothered by their presence. I have no doubt he is displeased now as well. The other side of the issue has some valid points, however. I read a comment on which pointed out there are places where children who are disruptive (special needs or not) should not be… ie, library, weddings, plays, movie theaters and church services. I tend to agree with this and this is coming from a mom of a VERY disruptive child with autism. We pick and choose the places we can take him. We try to be considerate of others around us. I expect that for myself when I am out as well… again, from all parents with children, not just special kids. I think what makes this dicey is that this is church, this is the house of God, a place where all should be welcome and supported. I attend a church that has made a way for families with kids to attend church. Typically no children are in the main service but attend a class for their own age and own understanding level for teaching. Our pastor takes the position that he wants the adults to be able to worship and learn freely without the distractions that come with a sanctuary full of kids. This works for me! :) Because of the work of one mother in our church, there is now a class for special needs kids… not just kids with autism… we have kids in wheel chairs, cerebal palsey, down syndrome and a variety of other disabilities. I cannot tell you the blessing it is to be able to go and have a safe place for Sam and feel free to worship. Sadly, very few churches do this and sadder still is that countless families stay home because they aren’t supported this way. I understand that there are hundreds of churches that do not have the kids classes and families sit together throughout the entire service. This is just a difference in style and tradition. My desire/opinion would be to see Christians and church leadership meet the challenge head on and support families who face struggles every single day. I think EVERY church should have a program for kids and families with disabilities. In the end there has to be some middle ground but I believe that the leadership of the church has the greater responsibility here.(yes, the family has some too). I also believe that we can all have opinions and emotions on this issue - it is too close to home for most of us not too. However, when it comes to church and God, I believe the final word goes to Him… scripture says to esteem others higher than ourselves, it says to bear with the weaknesses of others, it says to give the best seat in the sanctuary to the least likely person, not to be a respector of persons. (anyone want to know where is says these things, just ask). I believe Jesus would always, always, always want His church to error on the side of Grace. I read another comment that really choked me up and it simply said, rather than the congregation being annoyed or alarmed or filing complaints, has anyone just asked “how can I help?” Don’t we all long to hear those words when we are having a bad day or tough time with our kids? Wouldn’t that show the true love of God? For me, that one statement ends this whole mess.
Reen
May 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm
This is not an issue of disruptive behavior. It sounds like his presence was fine until his behavior crossed the line of being dangerous to those around him. Nobody has posted incidents that remotely resemble the details of this situation. Would everyone agree that if Adam’s actions posed a physical threat to those around him, he should not be attending mass? Whether he posed a threat is up for debate. I don’t think the church would resort to these measures lightly. The Catholic Church has a history of reaching out. From a PR perspective, they wouldn’t subject themselves to the bad publicity unless they truly thought it was necessary.
Regan
May 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm
It looks like these are the kinds of issues such as might apply when this goes to hearing in June. I don’t know this for a fact, but I imagine that a determination of when the line is crossed from annoying/disruptive to dangerous is going to be pivotal.
“(…)The Minnesota Human Rights Act mandates that people with disabilities can’t be barred from public places unless there is a direct threat to the health and safety of others.
That law hasn’t been tested in Minnesota as it applies to churches, said Minneapolis attorney Tammy Pust, who represents children and families with special needs.
Minneapolis attorney Joe Schmitt, who has represented employers and businesses in disability cases, pointed out that under federal law there’s a legal distinction between distracting and dangerous.
“Is he doing something in the church that we think is annoying or that we would prefer not be done in church? That is not the standard,” he said. “You can’t exclude someone from that public entity merely because you don’t like what they’re doing.” (…)”
Accommodating autism: Where’s the fine line?
Teen’s ouster from church stirs debate over disruptive vs. dangerous behavior.
http://www.startribune.com/local/19085694.html
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@Reen,
I suspect more than a few of us have been through similar experiences as the Races have in their church; that’s one reason some use these sorts of procedures.
@Joy, I’ve learned too much to process from this discussion!
When my husband asked the church in our town (his parents have been members for over 30 years) if they had programs for autistic/special needs children, the answer was “no.” There are other parishes in NJ that have special services and programs. I just hope much can be learned from all of this.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm
@Regan,
It’ll be (very) interesting to see what results from a hearing about this.
As in the case of specialized/separate “vs” mainstream placements, a lot depends as you note on what families think best. On the other hand, the media has not conveyed (not surprisingly) what Adam Race’s own wishes might be and I’d be hesitant of course to speculate about such.
Chuck
May 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Reen,
Those of us who are Catholic and do have autistic children have a little better insight into the ramifications of what is going on in this situation.
Would Jesus Christ have turned Adam Race away from the Sermon on The Mount?
If her wouldn’t, then why did the priest?
Wendy
May 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I live in the Twin Cities so my ears listen to the to the media’s depiction of this situation skeptically. They have a flair for emphasizing the dramatic over what is really happening. Just a few weeks ago one of the affiliates ran a big story on autism with teasers about Minnesota having the highest autism rates in the country. The actual thesis of the report that was stated at the beginning (Why are so many children being classified with the disorder in Minnesota-even without a doctor’s diagnosis?) was never really explored. It was implied that the schools were over-diagnosing but even the State Commissioner of Education disagreed. We also get a lot of sensationalistic “cure ” reports as well. So I take it all with a grain of salt.
That said, as a Catholic parent of 2 boys on the autism spectrum my instinct tells me the priest is exaggerating the situation out of fear. That makes me sad. If we parents took the same attitude with our children where would they be? We have been blessed by our children. This is OUR vocation. We take it on 24/7. We don’t ask for perfection from others-just an open mind.
We attend a large urban parish. We used to participate in Mass every week. But when our oldest son was 5 we struggled with the education program to let him attend Sunday school. He used to be a big hand flapper and he would vocal stim when he was anxious. At the time his limited vocabulary consisted of labeling things.They made it clear from Day 1 that they didn’t really want him there. It was a Montessori Program called (ironically) the Good Shepherd.We hired an experienced one-on-one to attend with him. The teachers said that she would have to take a year-long class on Montessori before they would let her come. We explained that she wasn’t there to teach him but to assist him with communication. Then I offered to go with him, but they said that wouldn’t be fair to the other parents if I got to go to class with my child when no one else did. These individuals never grasped the key tenet of Montessori about structuring the activities to the needs of the children. Plus, many people view autism differently. They would never say to a child in a wheelchair that “chairs aren’t allowed” .
To make an extremely long and painful story short, they relented and let my son go with his one-on one. We tried but it never worked out.
Back then, I felt like our faith community would cry with us, pray with us, or deliver a casserole to our house every night of the week if I asked.
Since then, many individuals have stepped up to the plate and been awesome. Both boys made their first eucharist at the same church. But I