Do you ever read a story and wish you really knew all of the details so you could know which side to be annoyed at?
Even something as seemingly black and white as somebody peeing in the church can’t seem to get a straight answer. How could that be? I’m guessing that it might potentially be the difference between somebody intentionally peeing on the floor versus accidentally wetting their pants. But who knows.
It also is almost amazing to hear of a church actually kicking somebody out. Most of the churches that I’ve been to seem almost desperate to get anybody and everybody in the doors.
Anyway, what do you think? Is the family wrong for not accepting the church’s offer to watch the church service from a different room or is the church wrong for not working harder to take better care of one of their members?
Would your answer be different if the kid wasn’t autistic but was just a typical 13 year old pain in the butt (that seems to plague a fair number of 13 year old boys)? Would your answer be different if the kid was 5′ 2″ and 130 lbs instead of 6′ and 225?
What do you think? Don’t forget that your comments this week automatically enter you in a chance to win a copy of Parenting, Inc. by Pamela Paul.
Related posts:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
UP ON SOAPBOX………….My opinion…..As with 100% of events we learn about, we do not know the facts about this event. Even if we were able to personally interview both sides and ask our own questions we would still not have 100% accuracy. Human nature does not work like that. so….. I agree with you….we really will never know who was wrong, who was right, who was willing to compromise, who tried to improve the situation, who aggravated the situation, who isn’t trying hard enough to understand individual differences, who isn’t trying to understand the needs of the other worshipers………NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS BLACK AND WHITE DOWN OFF SOAPBOX JUST BEFORE I GET ASKED TO OR KNOCKED OFF LOVE MOM
Hmm…this is a really tough call. I am inclined to think that the mom is in denial about several things. She says he is not dangerous, but then goes on to talk about the need for separate study areas in their home that they use so that her son won’t destroy the other children’s books and crayons. Not that I think someone destroying books and crayons is dangerous (otherwise, couldn’t we automatically label all toddlers dangerous?), but I think that that shows that she knows that he has the potential to be destructive and yes, even dangerous. I agree with you, I wish some of the facts were more clear so that I would know who to side with…peeing intentionally on a pew would be a big no-no, but someone having an accident would be, well, an accident. I think that the family could have accepted the offer to watch mass from the basement, and then they could have been allowed to come up for communion. That is what my church does with the children in the nursery. They stay in the nursery for most of the mass, but then come in to take communion with their families. They stay for the rest of the service because communion is at the end, or the families can just opt to leave after they take communion. I think that watching the mass and being allowed to come up for communion would be a fair option. Or maybe a priest could come downstairs and they could have a special family church service. I think that that would be a very good and fair option. I guess I am inclined to think that if the boy really is dangerous, and really did knock people over and hit a child, etc, then I think the church’s decision was a fair one….they have to make sure that the other people who attend are safe. I am sorry for the boy and sorry for his family that they won’t be able to attend this church anymore, but I also think that it is important to keep the other parishioners safe. On the other hand, I feel that the church should offer more choices than just watching the service in the basement. I think that a personal service just for this family would be the best option.
I think that we also need to look at the fact that he has hit, knocked over, and spit on people. I think that these are less likely to have a “grey area” than the wet himself vs. peed on the pew discussion. Also, he is at church, one of the more accepting locations. It isn’t the opera or a private ballet class. Even if he made some people nervous…in this venue they would be less willing to step forward to complain about it. I think the church did offer alternatives and the mother was so focused that she didn’ bother to think that maybe a slightly more restricive environment(the family room), may in fact be his least retrictive environment.
No, we don’t know the whole story, but it sounds as though this mother is in denial. I remember when I was just a child, I was terrified of another kid in our church. He was older than me and bigger than me and he was handicapped in some way. Anyway, he would roam the church without his parents and if he saw us, he would start hitting us or he would corner us in a room and then pound on us. His mom just told us to hit him back, but that certainly wasn’t helpful at all. I can certainly empathize with how some of the people in this church are feeling.
It is obvious that this child is a big disruption in church. Churches just don’t go around banning people from their services or going to get a restraining order. That is unheard of. I understand that she has a child with a disability, but she also needs to be respectful of those around her. Sure, the public school can provide an environment that is suitable for Adam, but she can’t expect everyone else to be that accomodating.
P.S. I see you got a new site design.