CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Article

I honestly am not sure how to feel about this story. On one hand, I kind of think it isn't really fair for the church to have gotten a restraining order like that.

But on the other hand, the mother of the boy said herself that sometimes he has anxiety attacks and they have to hold him down and restrain him. She also says that she keeps the other kids' study room separate so he doesn't destroy all their stuff. So she acknowledges that he can be disruptive.

Now, I'm not trying to discriminate against autistics, and I know they aren't all like this boy, but don't you think it would be more considerate of others if they went ahead and let them set up a video feed for them in a room separate from the rest of the congregation? I mean, he may not do anything wrong, but then again, he might.

It's sort of like how if your baby starts wailing in church, you're expected to take him outside to keep from disrupting the service. It's common courtesy really.

Also, I don't know a whole lot about Catholicism, so I have a question. Is it really considered a sin not to go to Mass like that lady says it is? (Please don't start any debates. I just want the facts. XD)

Hey, don't know what to say about the autism thing, just thought I'd say that not attendig (Sunday) Mass is considered a mortal sin, at least according to the fellows at Catholic Anwers. But I'd hate for this to be a source for more animosity between the denominations, so remember that a mortal sin is just opposing the will of God, for which you can get forgiveness by confessing and truly repenting. And I think the reason it is considered a mortal sin is that Mass, or, more specifically, the Eucharist, is a sacrament - a "source" of grace which will make you better equipped to stay faithful and live as a Christian. So by not attending Mass, you're saying, "I don't need God's grace", thereby committing some sin or another.

At least that's my understanding of the issue!

I don't think it is. But you'd have to ask someone else for a definite answer. Personally, I see the objection to not being in church during mass as illogical. You would have to logically conclude that those who are in hospital beds 24/7 would be sinning for not attending mass even if they couldn't help it. I know those people don't believe that, so their argument that this child should be allowed in church despite his behavior doesn't hold water.

That's basically it. People who are physically or mentally unable to be in church are essentially excused. In such cases, it is not unusual for either a priest or church member to distribute the eucharist whilst doing their rounds.

Personally, I'm a bit disgusted...but I can also see both sides.

For me, going to church is like a fellowship. I don't believe that it's a sin to not go, but it's an awesome bonus if you do. I love my church family, and I learn a lot from them.
And when I don't go to church (which, admittedly has been a little more frequent this year because of school and sickness) I feel sorta...blah all week.

So to seperate the boy and his family from the rest of the church, just seems kinda cruel.

I know he has a lot of problems...but is that really his fault? O_o

On the other hand, I sorta agree with Shiroi Hikari's opinion. It's like a baby that won't stop crying.

Its a puzzlement.

Manillien (post: 1232109) wrote:Hey, don't know what to say about the autism thing, just thought I'd say that not attendig (Sunday) Mass is considered a mortal sin, at least according to the fellows at Catholic Anwers. But I'd hate for this to be a source for more animosity between the denominations, so remember that a mortal sin is just opposing the will of God, for which you can get forgiveness by confessing and truly repenting. And I think the reason it is considered a mortal sin is that Mass, or, more specifically, the Eucharist, is a sacrament - a "source" of grace which will make you better equipped to stay faithful and live as a Christian. So by not attending Mass, you're saying, "I don't need God's grace", thereby committing some sin or another.

At least that's my understanding of the issue!

To avoid theological debate, I'm going to ask that we please not go down this road.

Anyways, thats' really sad. I feel bad for the parents, as they must feel kind of caught in between making sure their son has a good church life and keeping him from being destructive.

There are probably better solutions than kicking him out of church. That's only going to make him think that all Christians are exclusive. I like Shiroi's idea of putting him in a separate room with a video feed so he doesn't disrupt the service.

[font="palatino Linotype"]*sighs* Okay, this really hits home for me.

I have babysat two Autistic children, who were very destructive most of the time. ((Eating fiberglass, anyone?))

But that doesn't pertain to whether they should be kicked out of church!
If our church would have kicked out Kyle ((Autistic boy)) for doing what he does normally ((Interrupt children's services)), they would have done it years ago.

Sure, Autistic anxiety attacks can get extremely bad, but that's nothing to do with them being banned from a church.

[/font]

LadyRushia wrote:There are probably better solutions than kicking him out of church. That's only going to make him think that all Christians are exclusive.

It would, IF they just kicked him out right away. The problem is they've said he's disrupted services multiple times before. Even the Bible says if you correct someone multiple times and they still don't change, to treat him as an unbeliever.

Shortly after my dad died, a really slimy guy started trying to hit on my mom at church, constantly. Our pastor kicked him out. I don't think anyone would say that this was a bad thing to do.

I like Shiroi's idea of putting him in a separate room with a video feed so he doesn't disrupt the service.

Actually if you read the article, that isn't Shiroi's idea. The church offered to do that, and the woman refused, saying it "does not have the same status as attending Mass. Otherwise we could all just sit home and watch it on TV and not bother to come in."

Honestly I think I'm going to side with the church on this one. :\ They have no reason to lie about what the kid has done, but the woman has every reason to lie about what her kid has done. I've seen this before in person, a kid acting terrible and the mother says he's done "nothing wrong," when it's obvious to anyone watching that the kid is out of line.

This is sad, but a rather intriguing story. I always felt scared about churches discriminating against the disabled (autistic, learning dissabilities, etc.) because I too struggle with developmental and anxiety dissabilities of my own and have all my life. So it brought me the very question; how is one supposed to be Christian and worship God if we struggle with such disorders?

Like what some of the other posters have said here, I can understand both sides to the story. It probably is a good and possible solution to take an autistic person to some type of separation room or at least a smalller room if they are wailing in church. Or at least a smaller place so that they can pratice fellowship. I hope that makes sense XD.

I side with the church on this one. The kid's been extremely disruptive; even outside of church, he has to be placed in another room so he doesn't destroy his siblings' belongings and sometimes has to be essentially wrestled down and restrained. Add this to his size and I can see the danger. The church offered solutions and the mother's been difficult (plus playing the religious fervor card to attempt to justify it).

Also, I have nothing but contempt for the Rupp family bringing their daughter in and using her as some sort of display in protest. She's a human being, not a picketing sign. Besides, even if their daughter is well-behaved, it's utterly irrelevant. She isn't the issue. The boy is.

.rai//

Not only disruptive, but he was also apparently dangerous. If he is causing harm to other members of the church, he does need to find another church to go to. I've been thinking that the Catholic denomination is perhaps not the denomination for him.

My fiance told me about an autistic kid who kept getting kicked out of church after church after church. However his church back home in Michigan allowed the kid to stay, and when the kid was disruptive, the congregation was patient with him, and figured out a way to calm him down etc. Now he is an alter boy and has no trouble with his duties. He stays calm during church and is no longer a problem.
While I can see both sides of the argument, is it really necessary to get a restraining order? Also if the mass is that important to the family for him to go, can't they make arrangements with the priest to administer to the kid the eucharist before the service or something?

To clarify, the pastor isn't kicking the kid out to punish him, he is removing the child for the safety of his parishoners and the sanctity of the property. He's disrupted services, yes, but he's also peed on church property, shoved over elderly members of the church, and started a car and revved it with people standing right in front of it, according to the Pastor (all of which the mother denies. Kind of interesting).
There could certainly be more effort put in to trying to compromise on both sides, of course, but that's not to say that the Church hasn't tried to accomodate him.

Raiden no Kishi (post: 1232157) wrote:Also, I have nothing but contempt for the Rupp family bringing their daughter in and using her as some sort of display in protest. She's a human being, not a picketing sign. Besides, even if their daughter is well-behaved, it's utterly irrelevant. She isn't the issue. The boy is.

.rai//

Seriously.

Nate (post: 1232139) wrote:It would, IF they just kicked him out right away. The problem is they've said he's disrupted services multiple times before. Even the Bible says if you correct someone multiple times and they still don't change, to treat him as an unbeliever.

I've worked with autistic children at camp and the way they act they often have little control over. For example, many autistic children are extremely sensitive to sounds, so if the sound stimulus becomes overwhelming, they'll cup their hands over their ears, rock, and/or hum. Or if they become anxious (new environment, stressful circumstances), some autistic children will bite their arms/hands (or someone else). They are meaning to be harmful --the pressure on their teeth is somehow comforting. That's their coping mechanism.
I agree that the child should be placed elsewhere if he's being disruptive -- like maybe in a special-needs service where he could still fellowship with others, but not disrupt the main service.
I feel that many special-needs children are overlooked/excluded because many churches/camps/facilities are ill-equipped and are not trained to deal with them. It does take a lot of work and a lot of patience to work with these children, but it is amazing just to show them that they are loved, that they matter to God, and they bless you so much in return.

Yes, Catholics are obligated to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, as the article states. Manillien's post explained the "why" of that well enough. HOWEVER, there's always an exception for "grave reason," and I think that line's more than been crossed here. The boy can be brought the Eucharist at home, and each parent can attend Mass separately while one stays home with the boy (I've known this to be done in cases of the family having very small children at home.)

Not entirely sure that a restraining order was the *best* of options for the parish to pursue, but I'm guessing there's more to the situation on both sides than what the article states.

[/$0.02]

I think the biggest factor in this problem is that physically... this is not a child. The 'kid', while mentally young, is larger than many adults, over 225 pounds, 6 feet tall. The damage that could be caused, either out of anger or even just inconsiderate activity could be shocking, even fatal if inflicted on a smaller or younger child. On top of it he's messing with people's cars, revving them up while people are standing in front of them. We all know that a car can, even at low velocity, be fatal. Recent news events within the christian community have shown this to be sadly true.

I think that a concerted effort can be made by both the PARENTS and the church , to find a compromise that doesn't threaten the health and safety of the parishioners, and allows for some interaction, and possibly a doctor should get involved to educate both sides as to what would assist in dealing with the boy. Until this happens I would stand by the churches decision.

Yeah. It would be one thing if the child were six and 50 pounds with an anger problem, but this guy is that big and with an anger problem.

I would have to say the church leaders did the right thing. Especially, when the mom refused all other suggestions made to her u_u They were looking out for the safely of the members of the church. She said their claims were exaggerated, but even she said herself that they had to restrain him during one of his anxiety attacks by having another kid sit on him and strap up his arms (or something like that). I would say there's definitely danger there. Not just a "fear of danger" as she put it u_u

And, I imagine that the restraining order was made when they refused to comply to the churches request?

I agree, it was a bit wrong to kick the kid out for being autistic, but I don't think that's what they were doing.. at all o.o They saw that the safely of others were in jeopardy, so they took action. That's how I see it anyway.

Err, not sure if that first part of the last part came out right >_<

Raiden no Kishi wrote:Besides, even if their daughter is well-behaved, it's utterly irrelevant. She isn't the issue. The boy is.

Right, there are different levels of autism. Their daughter might have a mild case, whereas his is more severe. Just because she can behave doesn't mean everyone with autism can.

While I can see both sides of the argument, is it really necessary to get a restraining order?

I'd say yeah, it probably is, sadly. :\ The problem is some people just won't listen, and they seem to have gone past the point of "ask very nicely for her to not bring him to Mass." When you tell somebody "Look, you're endangering/disturbing the other members, please don't do this" and their response is "You'll have to drag me away in handcuffs before I stop" (that was the woman's actual response by the way), there aren't many options left.

Also if the mass is that important to the family for him to go, can't they make arrangements with the priest to administer to the kid the eucharist before the service or something?

I'd assume that was probably one of the compromises that the priest offered her, but again, she's being stubborn and unreasonable, and refuses to accept any compromises.

I really don't like how this somehow turned into discrimination against autistic kids o.o That's clearly not the case here. As Nate pointed out, just because one autistic kid can behave doesn't mean the other can. Or even vi-versa. Just because one acts out doesn't mean all acts out the same way. Comparing him to her isn't fair, because they aren't the same o.O

It disturbs me, the consistency with which members of (or sympathizers with) a particular people group are always up in arms over all perceived breeches of their rights, equality, etc., when the fault is clearly with them. They all stopped reading at "________ was banned," never reading the "Because" that follows. Unless it is someone else, in which case serves us right.

The "Was Banned" is bad, but the reason sure did justify it. Saying "It's not his fault/he can't help it" then admitting restraints is needed to restrain this kid does not help her case u_u

"It's not his fault.. all your claims are exaggerated... we have to have one of our other kids sit on him and strap his arms together." o.O

I think the individual I most disgusted with, as Raiden pointed out, is the family who dragged in their own daughter as an object of protest. Completely disrespectful and degrading, not to mention attempting to paint the church (who made several attempts to work with that family of the boy who was asked not to attend) as discriminating against austistic people in general.

I know the Catholic church around here offers a eucharist for members unable to attend due to personal issues (sickness, what have you...). The priest administers it and takes it in their abscence. I'm reasonably sure most all Catholic churches offer something to this affect, so the video feed idea or moving the boy to a room where he can watch the sermon without disrupting it would certainly have worked. Seems to me the mother is simply being stubborn and refusing to respect and work with her son's condition as much as she accuses the church of doing.

It's a hard issue, but seeing as the family some times has to tackle the son down to restrain him, she could be a *bit* more understanding towards the proposal of trying to accomodate him with a video feed.

All mothers want to think their child can do no wrong, but that may not be true u_u Ignoring that will just bring pain to you and your child.

Bringing in the autistic daughter was totally wrong. I mean, she may have been older and been worked with longer. Comparing him to her isn't right. Yes, proving not all autistic kids act out in such a way is good, but autism was never the case to begin with o.O It could've been anyone, and I still think the church would've made the same decision.

Something that has bothered me the entire time (I'm not sure if I mentioned this) is that the Reverend makes claims, and then the mother says none of them are true. One of them has to be the liar.

True, but she did kinda back him up when she said he has anxiety attacks at home. Which results in him being sat on to restrain him and his arms being tied together o.o

Etoh*the*Greato wrote:Something that has bothered me the entire time (I'm not sure if I mentioned this) is that the Reverend makes claims, and then the mother says none of them are true. One of them has to be the liar.

As I said before, I honestly think it's the mother. The Reverend has no reason to lie about what this kid has done. On the other hand, the mother has every reason to lie about it (to avoid being kicked out of the church).

I have no proof that she is lying, obviously, and maybe she's the one telling the truth and he's the one lying. I just think that's the more unlikely scenario.

I'm sure there would be someone to either backup the Rev. or speak against him if he were lying, but who knows. Could be some kind of conspiracy ~(O__O)~