Minnesota Mom faces arrest if she brings autistic son to church

[Ian David]

Black Collar Douchebaggery

Mom faces arrest if she brings autistic son to church
Associated Press, Bemidji Pioneer
Published Monday, May 19, 2008

BERTHA, Minn. (AP) - The mother of a 13-year-old autistic boy says she wanted to take him to Mass on Sunday despite a court order that bans him from her church.

Carol Race ended up attending a different church — after the Todd County sheriff stopped her and said she'd be arrested if she brought Adam to the Church of St. Joseph in Bertha.

There is a restraining order barring Race's son from St. Joseph's. The Reverend Daniel Walz wrote in court documents that Adam's behavior was disruptive and dangerous. Adam is more than 6 feet tall and over 225 pounds.

The pastor wrote that Adam spits, urinates and once struck a child during Mass.

More:
http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16017

[Waya]

1. Hmmmm.......

Wonderful, compassionate Christians - Jesus would be proud..............

[atufal1c]

3. You're supposed to add the sarcasm tag, remember?

He pissed on the floor and hit someone.

He's WHY most churches have home visitation.

Weird...

[Dorian Gray]

16. If he hit a child at church

I can't blame the church from not wanting him to attend public masses. He could potentially be dangerous.

[MercutioATC]

2. They have the right to protect the other churchgoers.

If this kid is that big and had been disorderly in the past, it's the church's responsibility to make certain they limit the possible harm to other church members. It sounds as if the restraining order was based on actual observed behavior, not a bias against the mentally challenged.

It's an unfortunate situation, but I don't have a problem with the church's decision.

[Ian David]

8. She should take him to a Charismatic Church. They'll declare him a prophet. n/t

[frogmarch]

23. haha - how right you are! n/t

[deadmessengers]

4. This is a no brainer, and has next to nothing to do with religion

Adam's behavior was disruptive and dangerous.
Adam spits, urinates and once struck a child during Mass.

This is all you need to know, in 2 short sentences. If a person's disability makes them a danger to others, than that person or their caretaker has a responsibility to society to minimize that danger. If this child has a history of harming others, then he should not be allowed to attend Mass. This is a no-brainer.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Since my sarcasm/satire was deleted

let me make it more clear so that people don't alert on it again.

What have they done to help this kid? Have they attempted to make any accomodations? Public schools have to, and do, take kids like this and, miraculously I guess, stop them from killing other kids or harming their peers. Do they check to see if other people in attendance have a "history of harming others"? So this priest, a vessel of Christ, can't find a way to accommodate one of God's creations so that that child can praise Jesus. Isn't there a suffer the little children line (I know, he's HUGE--which was why my deleted post was "yeah, retards are strong" but the sarcasm of that apparently went over people's heads) in the bible?

And need I mention the fact that the Catholic church has a history of keeping known pedophiles around little kids, but won't try to help out this kid because he is incontinent.

This pisses me off, if you couldn't tell.

[Book Lover]

38. The term you used was an insult

and if you want your intended sarcasm to be clear, use words better suited to that purpose.

[Goblinmonger]

39. As a "book lover"

have you never read satire? Satire only works if you use that which you are ridiculing. Were you the type of person who thought that the writers of All in the Family were racist?

And in case it still isn't clear, I used an insulting term to point out that the attitudes of many on here were insulting to the autistic. But....


WHOOOSH.

[Book Lover]

41. I have read effective satire, yes

Satire only works when the writer is skilled enough to convey his or her meaning. Don't blame me for your unrefined skills.

[Goblinmonger]

42. We aren't talking about

my effectiveness. But way to deflect the discussion. You had a problem with my word choice. My question is whether you think that satire should not use the words of those they intend to mock. Is "retarded" off limits just because it's a bad word? Would Archie Bunker have been a satire if he said he didn't like the "African-Americans and those of Jewish decent" or was the point better made when he said he hated "porch monkeys and kikes"?

[Book Lover]

43. I'm deflecting?

If your satire were effective, we would not be having this conversation. Yes, I am offended by your poor word choice. It was poor not because of the inherent insulting nature of the word, but also because your satire sucked.

[Goblinmonger]

45. I'm getting a little off point here, I'll admit

but how does it suck? Everyone here was talking about how it was OK to get a restraining order to keep this autistic kid out of church because he was big and scary. Nothing in the article (nor in the priest's affidavit) says that he committed any violence resulting in harm against anyone, yet everyone was saying it was reasonable to keep him out. And it all came down to the fact that he was big and autistic (read: uncontrollable--even though that is false). My comment to one of those people was "retards are strong" which is a very common bigoted statement made about the mentally handicapped. Why would I need to blather on about what that means? People should have read that and said, Yikes, and then thought about the fact that, in essence, everyone else on here was saying the same thing. If I would have said "retards are strong. I don't really mean that but everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in equally bigoted ways. Please stop." two things would have happened:

1. It would have ceased to be satire.
2. They would have just said that they weren't doing that and dismissed my reprimand.

By not going into the discussion, it remains satire and people can, hopefully, figure out the bigotry of this thread on their own. Coming to that conclusion on their own is going to result in a better chance of change than me preaching at them; that's the point of satire. The downside is that many people don't get it and many people are offended by the use of bigoted words to ridicule the bigoted. Do you think Gulliver's Travels would have been as great of satire (and I am by no means saying I have the skill of swift, but am using a common example) if he had said, "See by having Gulliver urinate on the capital building of this fictitious country, I am making a point about my feelings toward the government of Britain"? No, that would have sucked. I think you just reacted to my use of the word "retard" and didn't stop to consider that it might be satire. That's fine. But good satire is not always noticeable as satire, but you know that.

Sorry if I have droned on; I am on my prep after having talked about Saki's Tobermory in Advanced Brit Lit and am, admittedly, a little jacked up about discussing satire.

[Dorian Gray]

53. They tried to make accommodations for him

by offering Mass at home.

Mass is Mass. It makes no difference where it is held, as long as a priest sanctifies the Host. So that offer is making accommodations for the child and the family. The family rejected this accommodation, however.

[Goblinmonger]

54. So you are telling me

that there is absolutely no benefit to the community aspect of the service.

[Dorian Gray]

55. There definitely is....

but there are also cases where people are too ill or incapable of attending a public Mass. In those cases, the priest may perform a private Mass. (Priests are required to perform Mass daily, and many of them do it alone, as they are not Pastors of a church.)

It sounds like in this case the priest tried to accommodate the child and his issues at Mass.

And I totally understand where you are coming from here. It seems as though the church may be being unnecessarily restrictive about this child. But, at the same time, the church wants to ensure the safety of all the other children at the church. I don't know from the articles exactly what happened...

The priest may also be dealing with a lot of complaints from other parishoners. They may be unwarranted, but he may find that there is a disconnect about Mass, and the majority of the congregation is distracted by this child. If that is the case, it IS unfair. Mass is supposed to be truly a reverent time, and if the congregation is completely distracted by this child and complaining about it, then what recourse does the priest have other than trying to work with the family to make concessions that will work for everyone. And if the family refuses to comply....?

It's a weird (and obviously unusual) case. And it's possible that it's a case of a bunch of people unwilling to make allowances for an autistic child, and that would totally be unfair. But, if the child does actually pose any sort of threat to other children in the church, then I can understand the decision made by the church.

[bperci108]

5. An over 6-foot, 225 pound THIRTEEN -year-old?

Could that be a typo?

:wtf:

[deadmessengers]

7. I was 5'10" 225 at that age

That child's size isn't surprising at all.

[knitter4democracy]

21. Probably not.

Our priest and his wife's son is autistic, too, though he's much better than that (early intervention really helped with him). He's 13, and he's now 6'3" with size 15 shoes. We're all pitching in to keep him clothed, since stuff that big is really expensive.

[Wickerman]

6. nice, compassionate approach

I find restraining orders are an excellent way to show Christian love.

:eyes:

[YOY]

10. Did you read the article

The kid is not safe to have around. He attacks people. He is a BIG kid.

It is not a matter of love and kindless but an issue of safety.

[Wickerman]

13. Of course I read the article

I'm not in the habit of posting blindly but thanks for the insinuation as I dare have a different take than you.

I also read that the mother had a different account of his behavior than did the priest. One wonders what accommodations were made or if this was a knee jerk reaction to one time incident. We really don't have enough information for folks to get as wound up and as righteous as I'm reading here.

Having personal knowledge of what parents go thru with Autistic children and with what a congregation goes thru with a disruptive and a potentially dangerous member I have to say that on the balance arrest threats are very extreme. My two cents.

[Goblinmonger]

32. He attacks person.

NOT people. And we don't know what happened in that instance. Or the severity of it. But sure, there is no problem kicking out the retard because he happened to "strike" on other kid. Don't make accommodations for him or anything--it's not like it is a church based on the teachings of someone seen as compassionate.

[Beregond2]

11. You can be sure

the priest made every effort to get the parents to see reason before he resorted to this. Any church member can receive the sacraments at home. This is a safety issue, not a religious one.

[Wickerman]

12. I don't think we know enough to make such judgement either way

Having personal knowledge of what parents go thru with Autistic children and what a congregation goes thru with a disruptive and a potentially dangerous member I have to say that on the balance arrest threats are very extreme. My two cents.

[Goblinmonger]

33. How the hell do you know that?

So why even have mass then if you can just receive sacraments at home? There must not be any benefit for attending mass, then. Oh, yeah, this kid probably won't get anything out of the mass because he is autistic. Every effort. If I were a betting man, I would bet against that.

[YOY]

9. Douchebaggery?

Sorry, the kid assaults elderly parisioners. The priest is in every goddamn right he has.

No sale for this agnostic former-Catholic,

[cornermouse]

14. Autistic people tend to not understand the concept of

personal space and the need most of us feel not to be cheek to cheek with strangers while standing in line waiting to purchase items at the store. And if you've ever been around them, it's also not difficult to see an autistic child, who upon seeing something or someone "over there" barging on through or between people without thinking about the fact that he may upend someone as he goes past.

[YOY]

15. I'm afraid understanding autism doesn't make this one autistic child any more safe to be around

Perhaps if we spent less time talking about what it exactly is and more time figuring out why the number of diagnosed kids has skyrocketed we might get somewhere.

[cornermouse]

17. And you plan to do what with those who are already born autistic?

Not all of them are like this boy/young man. You could find yourself standing in line at the check out stand next to one of them and never know it. Not that I really expect it, but in case you interested in learning something. You might also want to volunteer to work with autistic chidren. You could be surprised.

A handicapped child is painful to raise, due in part to outsiders who stand around judging something that they know nothing about. But it's also the closest you'll get here on earth to finding love that is from the heart and makes no personal judgment, no condemnation.


There are three distinctive behaviors that characterize autism. Autistic children have difficulties with social interaction, problems with verbal and nonverbal communication, and repetitive behaviors or narrow, obsessive interests. These behaviors can range in impact from mild to disabling.

The hallmark feature of autism is impaired social interaction. Parents are usually the first to notice symptoms of autism in their child. As early as infancy, a baby with autism may be unresponsive to people or focus intently on one item to the exclusion of others for long periods of time. A child with autism may appear to develop normally and then withdraw and become indifferent to social engagement.

Children with autism may fail to respond to their name and often avoid eye contact with other people. They have difficulty interpreting what others are thinking or feeling because they can’t understand social cues, such as tone of voice or facial expressions, and don’t watch other people’s faces for clues about appropriate behavior. They lack empathy.

Many children with autism engage in repetitive movements such as rocking and twirling, or in self-abusive behavior such as biting or head-banging. They also tend to start speaking later than other children and may refer to themselves by name instead of “I” or “me.” Children with autism don’t know how to play interactively with other children. Some speak in a sing-song voice about a narrow range of favorite topics, with little regard for the interests of the person to whom they are speaking.

Many children with autism have a reduced sensitivity to pain, but are abnormally sensitive to sound, touch, or other sensory stimulation. These unusual reactions may contribute to behavioral symptoms such as a resistance to being cuddled or hugged.

Children with autism appear to have a higher than normal risk for certain co-existing conditions, including fragile X syndrome (which causes mental retardation), tuberous sclerosis (in which tumors grow on the brain), epileptic seizures, Tourette syndrome, learning disabilities, and attention deficit disorder. For reasons that are still unclear, about 20 to 30 percent of children with autism develop epilepsy by the time they reach adulthood. While people with schizophrenia may show some autistic-like behavior, their symptoms usually do not appear until the late teens or early adulthood. Most people with schizophrenia also have hallucinations and delusions, which are not found in autism.

[YOY]

20. What the hell does have to do with this case?

Look, If they're pigeon-holed that's one thing, If they are individually handled that's another...like this troubled kid. However, if you're going to write a novel to educate me on autism let's pretend it's for a reason other than playing the concern troll, OK?

If you're trying to fish some "lock them autistic retards up" line out of me you won't get it save in quotes.

[Goblinmonger]

34. But you are pretty willing to just cast this one kid off.

All we know is that he "struck" another kid. And he is incontinent. That's it. And you have no problem with them getting a restraining order.

Yikes.


Let me say that again. YIKES.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I don't alert on people

I'm a big boy.

And you may want to let go of whatever I said to you years ago. I don't remember it. I apologize if I pissed you off. But that has nothing to do with this. Different topic.

Or you can continue to carry that chip. Up to you.

[CatholicEdHead]

18. More on the story (with two video clips) here

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=511306

[Goblinmonger]

51. OMG, I thought that kid was going to kill that reporter

I'm series!!!11!1!!!

Thanks for the link to those two videos. Confirmed what I thought.

[Book Lover]

19. One wonders how Adam behaved at the other church (nm)

[knitter4democracy]

22. I wonder what they've done to accomodate him.

Our priest and his wife (Eastern Orthodox) have an autistic son. Now, he's nowhere near like that, but we are gentle with him as a church and make sure not to push his triggers.

If he has problems with the loud music, though, his mom would do best to get a sitter for Sunday mornings so she can worship in peace. Sometimes it's the decibel level--many of the autistic kids I worked with when I taught have really sensitive (like, off-the-charts sensitive) hearing. If that's the case, then he really can't be in there.

Urinating is not okay. He can be taught not to do that, and they can all work together on the hitting thing.

[Silent3]

24. Seems reasonable to me...

...or at least as reasonable as possible in the context of church attendance, which I consider to be an irrational enterprise to begin with.

Even if the boy's behavior were being exaggerated some, I still don't think that, even by any hypothetical lofty ideal of what "Christian charity" is supposed to be, it's reasonable to expect a group of people, gathered together for a specific purpose, intent on being able to concentrate on their proceedings, should have to toleration disruption of any sort week and week after week. The mother has other options. I doubt that the church teaches that attendance to mass each and every Sunday is the only hope of salvation that they offer. It's the mother who's being inconsiderate. She's not just expecting others to share her burden, she's multiplying the burden itself by bringing her child into an unsuitable enviroment for him, then expecting everyone to share that needlessly increased burden.

If the mother won't stop bringing her son when asked to do so, what choice does the church have other than to involve the police?

[John Gauger]

26. "What choice does the church have other than to invovle the police?"

They could ask God for help.

[Silent3]

28. You know the old rationalization.

In this circumstance, God is acting through the police. :)

[John Gauger]

40. Ah, I love that version of God.

I am always astounded by people who believe in a god that for all intents and purposes appears not to exist. That God, in all ways, is identical to a god that does not exist. All observable phenomena are actually the doing of god, only through unobservable mechanisms. He's always there, but you never see him. Right.

[John Gauger]

25. I don't see a problem.

I don't want this kid around me either. As far as I'm concerned, you fuck up a kid just one time, and you're done. Gonzo. What else was the guy supposed to do?

In fact, I say good on him. He should take it further and ban everybody from attending Mass, and instruct them to kindly grow a brain.

[uberllama42]

27. I think that pastor is being entirely reasonable

I don't think I would do anything different. How would you react if you presided over a weekly meeting and one week a 225lb. attendee struck a child? Would you invite him back?

Spitting is a minor problem, and incontinence can be accounted for with diapers, but violence against children is absolutely not acceptable.

[Ian David]

30. There must have been some kind of accommodation they could have made.

Technically, don't they believe that the kid goes to hell if he doesn't engage in symbolic ritual cannibalism and formalized gossiping?

[uberllama42]

44. I'm not sure what their beliefs are about those who are unable to attend Mass

I do think a large person who doesn't understand his own strength and thereby poses a danger to children can be barred from attending. As others have suggested, there probably are accommodations that could be made. I think you're right, the pastor could have tried to ensure communion could be received in another setting.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Perfect example. Thank you.

See, yesterday, I would have just responded with "retards are strong" but that just gets deleted, so let me drone one. You say "doesn't understand his own strength." How is that any different (other than word choice) from "retards are strong"? How do you know this kid doesn't understand his own strength? They used to say that blacks couldn't control their libido (didn't use that word cause they weren't that smart, of course) and would hence lynch them for looking at their white women.

I don't get how people can't see the bigoted statements they are making about the autistic.

And one more time: this is a church that played a shell game with pedophiles but god forbid they make it possible for this autistic kid to go to church (which the mother says he enjoys because of the routine--very accurate for those that work with the autistic) when he hasn't really done anything (the priest's affidavit says that the autistic kid "NEARLY" harmed children and the elderly).

[uberllama42]

49. Are you now saying that Adam Race is culpable for hitting that other child?

I'm not a psychologist, so I could be wrong, but I thought the incident in which Adam hit another child was symptomatic of his autism. It made sense to me that someone with impaired social faculties would not be able to understand that a 225lb. person hitting a child would be different than a child of the same size hitting that child. That would mean that he is not morally culpable for his actions but could still reasonably be judged a danger to people smaller than himself. If, as you suggest, he understood the implications of that action, it follows that he is culpable for it. In that case I only feel more emphatically that he should be kept from other children, and that the question of being discriminated against because of his disability is no longer relevant.

Why is the pedophilia issue relevant here? Every single Catholic official who is complicit in the abuse of children should go to jail, from the Pope on down. But absent any evidence that this priest is a pedophile, I think the assertion that this priest is part of that abuse is a stereotype of Catholics. Why does that have any bearing on this incident?

Again, I would not say that Adam Race "hasn't really done anything." I take a very large person hitting a child seriously.

[Goblinmonger]

50. You weren't talking about moral culpability

you said "doesn't know his own strength" which is a (false) meme of bigotry akin to "retards are strong."

Pedophilia isn't on point here other than the fact that the irony of it all just kills me.

It is a very large child hitting a child not a "very large person" just to keep the language fair. Secondly, the term used in the article was "strike" and not hit. Thirdly, the official sworn statement of the priest is that he "nearly caused harm" not that there was ever any harm caused. I would imagine that that wording, being a sworn statement, is important. You, of all people given your post a couple back, should go with the court document above all. That being the case, this kid did nothing to harm anyone but is just freaking people out and "nearly" causing harm.

[Goblinmonger]

35. And you base that on what?

That this autistic kid "struck" another child (and we don't even know what this means). Once. That's it. Does the priest ask if anyone else in attendance had struck a child?

And as to your specific question (and please forgive my language because I'm feeling a rant coming on), yes I would invite him back again if he was fucking autistic because I would have enough god damned brains to realize that it wasn't his fucking fault that he hit the kid. I might not be such an enormous douchebag and I would actually fucking try and find out why it happened and if, god fucking forbid, there were anything I or my parish could do to help this kid because FUCKIN A he's autistic and me putting out a restraining order on his mother to keep him from church is, in my opinion, a mortal sin that I hope lands this assbag in hell (if there actually were one). FUCK. Three of my high school classmates are priests and if this fuckhead were one of them, I would drive up to Minnesota (which I am doing next weekend anyway) and kick their ass for doing this.

And according to the Trib article, in an affidavit, the priest says that the kid "has nearly injured children and elderly people." Not that he HAS injured them, but "nearly" injured them.

Douche-fucking-bag

[uberllama42]

47. I commend your desire to accommodate the mentally retarded

If Adam had not been judged to be a danger to other children in a court of law, I would agree with you 100%. I'm not saying he deserves to be excluded as punishment for his disability, nor am I saying that he is morally culpable for hitting another child. I think both of those suggestions are reprehensible. Perhaps it's naive to assume that the judge who issued the restraining order is not biased against the mentally retarded (which would surely be grounds for appeal), but I trust her/his judgment that the order was necessary.

Sometimes it is necessary to take preemptive action to protect children. As I said to IanDB1 above, perhaps this priest could have arranged for Adam to receive communion in a setting where he was not a danger to children. AFAIK, the priest did not do that, so I was wrong to say that he has been entirely reasonable. There is no question in my mind that it was reasonable to ask Mrs. Race not to bring her son back.

Frankly, I think you are being callous about the well-being of the other children in that parish. I don't think it's appropriate to wait until he actually injures another child to conclude that he poses a danger. There is no question that a person of his size could do significant harm to a child. He does not deserve to be denied communion, but he can reasonably be excluded from environments in which he is a danger to other children.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nay]

52. Well, WTH is the church supposed to do? Let Adam run amok and

hurt people, damage things, etc.? It's obvious that he's not getting much out of church anyway, and the priest was more than fair to offer to come to the house, use a video feed, etc. I think this is a case of Mom simply acting like an entitled asshole, frankly.

Years ago in the UU Church I attended, we had to do the same thing to a member family. The children were simply out of control--they hit other kids, and if they had to use the bathroom, they stuffed rolls of toilet paper into the toilets. These kids were ages 7, 8 and 10. The father had the grace to apologize and understand why he could no longer bring his kids. We all felt sorry for them, but church really isn't a psychiatric facility -- we had several members with mental problems, but once anyone got violent, that was it.