1 edit
I recall a similar story many months ago--from People magazine of all places. A little girl was deathly allergic to those wheat cracker thingies at communion? Well, the parents asked if they could give her one made of rice instead so she wouldn't, you know, expire? Well, the church denied the request. I don't know if other options were explored--after all, it WAS "People". And not being Catholic, I don't know if a substitute cracker is considered blasphemy or not. Just found these 2 stories to be of parallel interest.
Originally posted by bbarrEminently reasonable, but substantially already addressed by ConrauK: "They've suggested the family go to a different mass or sit somewhere else during mass, and they even suggested getting a mediator involved."
Allow the family to attend Mass, and reserve seats in the back for them. Have an assistant provided by the Church that can help escort the child out if he gets violent. Inform the congregation of the special precautions needed in dealing with the child, and allow the family to leave the church first so that the child does not injure parishioners in his haste ...[text shortened]... upon their arrival to church, or allow them to take communion at some other time during the day.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHowever, from the other article linked by Conrau:
Eminently reasonable, but substantially already addressed by ConrauK: "They've suggested the family go to a different mass or sit somewhere else during mass, and they even suggested getting a mediator involved."
Carol Race said the family of seven, which has attended St Joseph since 1996, typically sat in the cry room or in the back pew to keep avoid disrupting the services and did not hear a complaint from the parishioners until Walz showed up at their home in June.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7233
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt also says the boy's behaviour has been getting worse. As for not receiving complaints, people are more likely to complain to an authority figure than to the parent of the child. My son often does things that upset other children's parents, and I am always the last to know - typically when the issue is raised by the teacher.
However, from the other article linked by Conrau:Carol Race said the family of seven, which has attended St Joseph since 1996, typically sat in the cry room or in the back pew to keep avoid disrupting the services and did not hear a complaint from the parishioners until Walz showed up at their home in June.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7233
The alleged benefit of the religious experience for the autistic child is very interesting. If I had the misfortune to be a priest, I might want to explore that -- involve the kid in the ceremony or something. Maybe get all the autistic religious kids in the region together and have a special mass for them. The Pope could do his bit by canonizing an autistic saint.
As for what Jesus would have done -- no doubt Jesus would have diagnosed a case of demonic possession and cast the demons out. But that probably wouldn't fly today ...
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe church suggested they 'sit somewhere else', yet the mother claims the family sat in the back row, or in the cry room. If the mother is telling the truth, I'm not sure why the church would suggest they sit somewhere else. Where else would cause less disruption?
It also says the boy's behaviour has been getting worse. As for not receiving complaints, people are more likely to complain to an authority figure than to the parent of the child. My son often does things that upset other children's parents, and I am always the last to know - typically when the issue is raised by the teacher.
The alleged benefit ...[text shortened]... case of demonic possession and cast the demons out. But that probably wouldn't fly today ...
I have no idea what Jesus would have done. I doubt he could heal the kid, because I don't think he actually had supernatural powers. But the point remains that he welcomed those people and attempted to help them rather than seeing them as a 'problem' and turning them away.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe context of the quoted passage is that Jesus was curing sick people, The priest was doing something totally different than that, so IMO the analogy doesn't work.
No, he's pointing out that the Jesus wouldn't have turned the boy away from his service, if the stories about him are even remotely true.
Originally posted by PinkFloydJust to be clear, the issue is in regards to the material that the species out of which the Eucharist
I recall a similar story many months ago--from People magazine of all places. A little girl was deathly allergic to those wheat cracker thingies at communion? Well, the parents asked if they could give her one made of rice instead so she wouldn't, you know, expire? Well, the church denied the request. I don't know if other options were explored--after ...[text shortened]... ker is considered blasphemy or not. Just found these 2 stories to be of parallel interest.
must be made. The Church, long before allergies, defined that the Host must be made of
a wheat-based material, just as the drink must be wine. The Church considers this to be dogmatic,
like any of its other tenets. A rice-host could not be consecrated, nor could grape juice, say.
There are no 'other options' short of revising canon law. (They do make low-glutton hosts,
though, for those with mild allergies.) A local priest has no authority to overturn such laws.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIt wasn't an analogy. It was a direct comparison.
The context of the quoted passage is that Jesus was curing sick people, The priest was doing something totally different than that, so IMO the analogy doesn't work.
And the point is just what you said - to show that the church, the alleged followers of Christ, are acting nothing like he would act. Not only do they lack the power to heal him, they can't even be bothered to put up with him for an hour.
Originally posted by SwissGambitBy what criteria do you judge the mother as an honest witness and the priest as dishonest?
It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct comparison.
And the point is just what you said - to show that the church, the alleged followers of Christ, are acting nothing like he would act. Not only do they lack the power to heal him, they can't even be bothered to put up with him for an hour.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThen you admit that there is no clear context to judge the actions of the priest? If it turns out that he has told the truth, that the autistic boy has attacked other people and that the mother refused all alternative measures to ensure his and others' safety, would you change your opinion?
I made no such judgment. Key word: "[b]If the mother is telling the truth..."[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KActually, we should both re-read the two reports over again, carefully.
Then you admit that there is no clear context to judge the actions of the priest? If it turns out that he has told the truth, that the autistic boy has attacked other people and that the mother refused all alternative measures to ensure his and others' safety, would you change your opinion?
In the petition, [Father Walz] wrote that Adam has "struck a child" in mass. He "spits," and he has "urinated" in Church.The church does not dispute that the parents make an effort to restrain him.
"It takes up to three adults to restrain him," and sometimes his behavior is so disruptive, his parents "bind his feet and his hands."
Here's an article with even more info:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4885322&page=1
"He said that we did not discipline our son. He said that our son was physically out of control and a danger to everyone at church," Carol Race said. "I can't discipline him out of his autism, and I think that's what our priest is expecting."Again, IF true, it sounds like the church may not fully understand autism. IF true, I can see why the parents might be reluctant to accept some of the restraint 'alternatives' offered.
Originally posted by SwissGambitActually, if those quotes are true, then I side with the church. A boy that strikes children needs to be removed from the church.
Actually, we should both re-read the two reports over again, carefully.In the petition, [Father Walz] wrote that Adam has "struck a child" in mass. He "spits," and he has "urinated" in Church.The church ...[text shortened]... ts might be reluctant to accept some of the restraint 'alternatives' offered.
"It takes up to three adults to restrain him," and sometimes his behavior is so disruptive, his parents "bind his feet and his hands."
Originally posted by kirksey957And give him a belt to hold up his pants!
Fo rizzle! That boy is just like the Garasene demoniac that Jesus dealt with so effectively. Look, here's all they have to do. I could solve this problem in no time flat. What you do is you have to realize that this here boy ain't gonna be satisfied with some little crumb of a communion wafer. I'd give this boy a whole damn loaf of bread and his own ...[text shortened]... d tell him to go up in the balconey and occupy himself for being such a good boy. Chuuch!