Autistic child banned from Church

[ladypeartree]

No Scarlet you are not the " bad guy" any more than others who feel the same way ...there is more to this story than is coming out here ....yes I do have "experience" of autism...I taught autistic children for over 15 years and have a nephew ( very close to me ) that has aspergers. I have seen what can happen when these children get over excited or upset ...the mum apparently said he " pulled the girl onto his lap as he needed the weight to comfort him " ..what about the girl he pulled ? YES these children should be accepted as part of the community BUT so should other children who, having an experience like that happen to them , could be "lost" from going to church from fear. It is very well for an adult to say they feel no fear from sitting with the child BUT another child being grabbed by a six foot adult ( in a childs eye anyone that size IS an adult ) would be very strange not to be afraid.

The parents say they have him controlled and lots have questioned why keys were left in cars ...I would ask how he got out of the church for long enough to start and rev up not just one but TWO cars before anyone got to him. If he had got out onto the road in either car and had killed someone then the blame would no doubt have fallen on the church officials .." why didnt they lock the doors etc "

I have helped to intergrate an severely autistic child into our local church but it was not easy for the child who didnt understand what was going on as well as for older members of the congragation who had such difficulty in listening to the sermon or having quiet prayer time with lots of sudden and unexpected shouting going on.......There is ALWAYS more than one point of view.

[Scarletprayers]

Marnie!

[Rick-Parker]

Here's a link that explains a bit more.

link

Your fighting a loosing battle..............................

What do you mean?

Nobody wants to read the link, they want to point their finger at the church, nobody would want someone that big and that out of control around themselves or their children. He is a danger to himself and others, which she is apparently unconcerned about. They went to her privately, like they were supposed to (Matthew 18), evidently no one mistreated her since she wasn't "aware" there was a problem until they came to her home. They offered her ways to handle the problem all of which it says she refused. The church is behaving correctly, she is not.

I read the link. What I read was the church making accusation of dangerous behavior. I do agree that the child belongs in the crying room or another room if he is not quite or still. Just as every other disruptive child. If there, the child and his family should be given the sacrements at the same time as the other parishiners. To do less is to discriminate against the whole family, not just the child.

edit: I also have a close nephew who has Autism. His church as made accommidation for him and other special needs persons. One question, what would the church do if it has a child with Cerebral Palsy who made noise, knocked over books and drooled all over the place? The burden is upon the chruch to minister to the congregation.

[Scarletprayers]

You know I'm not gonna get into this again, because irregardless of whats been posted there are people here who are emotionally involved in this issue because of family/friends. And I don't wont to hurt any of their feelings, because I love them. But, I think you need to read the link again, the Mother agreed that these things had happened.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Scarletprayers

[Marnie]

The burden is upon the chruch to minister to the congregation.

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, but would add the burden to care for and to control the child is the parents. I would expect my church to do what they are able to do for Mikey, but no more. In other words, the needs of the entire congregation must be met, not merely the needs of one child. There must be balance.

It's easy to get all emotional about this issue, but resolution is possible only if both parties make accommodations. The church should do what it is able to do given what resources it has, and the parents shouldn't expect more than that.

As a side note. We have a number of "shut ins" who make up our congregation. Most are elderly and infirm, but we do have two severely disabled people in their prime. They don't come to church because they cannot sit through a service due to incontinence in once case and extreme arthritic pain in the other. We visit them once a month and bring them communion. They are mailed the bulletins and sermon outlines and Bible study notes each Monday. Even though they cannot be physically present at services, they still deserve to be ministered to because they are part of the Body of Christ through the local church. They deserve the same care and consideration as those able bodied people who attend regularly. Pity more people don't understand this. Perhaps is the mother in the article understood what being part of the Body of Christ was truly about, this whole thing could have been avoided.

[mead]

[Rick-Parker]

I just think that the two parties could have worked out a compromise that let the family attend mass and the rest of the congregation be safe. Getting a restraining order is pretty harsh.

[nebula]

I heard the interview with the mother and I think she is in the wrong. She is definitely not demonstrating a Christ-like spirit, but on the other hand, even though I feel the church is well within their rights, their approach to this, bringing in the law and such, is not Christ-like either. However, I am sure their response is a in response to the mother and her belligerent attitude.

No Scarlet you are not the " bad guy" any more than others who feel the same way ...there is more to this story than is coming out here ....

This kind of follows the point I was meaning to make originally -

There is more to the story than what was reported (and it doesn't help that articles are written with biased slants).

Those of you who have raised or dealt with autistic children are in a better position to assess the mother in this case better than I - if she could have done better or not.

And right or wrong, it just doesn't sound to me like the church knows how to handle the situation; that isn't meant as slander, but as an observation (I can't say that I would know what to do).

We'd all be better off, instead of trying to take sides, to learn from the situation and pray for those involved.