Found this article yesterday:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4885322

Not sure what to think about this one....It makes me sad that the church officials complain about a severely autistic child making spitting faces and urinating....not much you can do about that.  And how in the world is this kid able to start 2 cars in the parking lot unless someone gave him the keys?  At the same time, though, I wonder why the family wouldn't accept accommodations the church offered.  I can understand the family wanting him to interact with more people, but if you have to keep restraining him in front of people, it just makes it an unpleasant experience for everyone, especially the kid.  And then he would just connect going to church with bad experiences and never want to go.  Still I think issuing a restraining order is a bit much.

Any thoughts?

There is a family in our church that has an autistic child...well he's not a child anymore, he's actually around my age (31 or 32). Years ago, they would attempt to bring him to church (he lived in a group home, but was with them on the weekends). Anyway, one Sunday during church service, for some reason or another...he decided to totally act out. Certain things would set him off, I guess..and something was said or whatever and it made him act up. He was creating a scene, flailing his arms, pushing chairs, etc...and I guess during the madness he grabbed ahold of another parishioners hair and pulled it so hard that it came out of her head, causing her to have to go to the hospital immediately.  Fortunately his parents were smart enough to realize that maybe taking him there wasn't the best idea..and from then on, he didn't attend.

On the other hand, our church never responded to this family, as the church in the article did. No one told the family that the boy was banned, etc. It was the parent's responsible decision to be aware that maybe it wasn't the best idea for the child to be there, causing scenes.

Coming from a less severe Autistic person...That's balony! I made some noises in church and my parents settled it...but this was when I was a child.

And since this was a Catholic Church...you got that right...a Catholic Church, why couldn't the Preist do an exorcism?

I'm glad that their parents found a new church because Jesus would've let this kid to church.

Maybe their parents found a church that practices Faith-Healing.

I also need to tell my pastor this as well.

Upon clicking the abcnews link, the following was included in the comments section.


Yet another post, quoting Carole race, from Autismspeaks.org message board......................................................................Quote:Originally Posted by job19_25a This was posted on another forum: There are two sides to every story . . . ...From Press Release: Mother of boy with autism barred from mass corrects statements from priest & Diocese• The language in the restraining order reflects the view of a person who does not understand the symptoms of autism. Adam may be large and sometimes physical but he is not angry and violent, and does not spit in church. He exhibits characteristic traits common in people with autism, such as self-injurious behavior and meltdowns when facing sensory overload or when feeling overwhelmed. • Fr. Walz used leading language, such as saying Adam has "urinated in church." However my son did not publicly expose himself, as the term "urinate" implies. Adam has incontinence issues on rare occasion, and these have been thoroughly cleaned by the family. Young children also have accidents. No one knows how many seniors have “urinated in church� – all who do deserve privacy and dignity.• Most of the time Adam can walk through a crowd of people in a patient and gentle way. And because our family leaves the church service early, there should not be anyone during these times to “bolt through.� At times Fr. Walz has refused requests to help our son get safely through the aisles. • Fr. Walz unfairly describes Adam’s autistic behaviors as "disruptive." Yet other children often cry or act out during mass for long periods of time. Visually, unless you sit in the back there is no disruption.• Fr. Walz refers to Adam’s self-injurious behavior as "dangerous," saying he "strikes himself in the head violently." That shows no understanding, and offers no aid. Adam harms no one else physically.Sometimes my husband and I need to restrict Adam’s movements to prevent him from hurting himself or his family who sit near him. Other families and school personnel are trained in safe restraint practices. My husband and I place a fleece strip (not rope) around either our son’s wrists or ankles. During these times he is not a danger to those seated around us. If we feel he may be momentarily out of control, we would ask those people to step aside for a few moments, but that would be rare. • I do not recall any episode that could be described as such: "ery recently he bolted out and had to be tackled by his family. He battered his father as he was being restrained." In fact, over the past two months, Adam has made almost no noises during church, he has been actually standing, sitting, and kneeling with the congregation. Adam has been attempting to make the sign of the cross, hold hands at the Our Father, offer the sign of peace with those around him, and generally participate like most other people at Mass who do not make the verbal responses.Regarding concerns about our foreign exchange daughter: She had been living in our home for six months. She accepted Adam and understood his ways. Fr. Walz misinterpreted the incident he described. She was standing near Adam because she preferred to be by him. In an attempt to socialize, or perhaps because she weighed just the right amount, Adam took her by the waist and showed her that he would like her to sit on his lap. She did so willingly, and with a smile on her face. It was an act of kindness on her part. I watched the situation very closely, as did my husband. There was nothing inappropriate about the way he touched her. He never grabbed her buttocks nor her thighs. Consequently we were very shocked to see that false statement in the restraining order. When Fr. Walz reported his version to the County, the report was ignored. The foreign exchange agency, ASA, has a policy of removing any student whenever there is an allegation of sexual abuse, regardless of whether or not it is substantiated. So she was removed against her will, against the local ASA rep’s will, and against her family's wishes in Poland. Fr. Walz’s actions were scandalous to her faith, as well as to my children who loved their ASA sister dearly.The priest, Fr. Dan Walz, refused to discuss our family’s situation with anyone trained in autism, including a behavioral consultant hired by the parents specifically to help with accommodations for mass. This well-known and experienced behavioral consultant wrote a three-page report with many suggestions; however it was ignored. Fr. Walz also refused to speak with a county social worker who tried to help the parish find reasonable accommodations for Adam's continued inclusion. • The worst of Adam's behaviors resulted from lack of accommodations or cooperative discussions. Case in point: The car-revving incident. Normally our family left Church before the closing song, which would allowed three minutes before the congregation left. During Lent, Fr. Walz omitted the closing song and failed to ask the congregation to wait to leave until our family had left first. • Fr. Walz refused mediation through a local Protestant minister. He refused it unless his only option – Adam not attending Mass – was on the table. I believe that over the past 11 months Fr. Walz lobbied both parish and diocese to approve his plan to bar Adam from Mass. A March 3, 2008 letter through the diocesan Tribunal office stated: "For mediation to take place, however, all things must be on the table to be discussed. This means that the issue of taking Adam out of Mass must remain open." • Fr. Walz’s goal is clear: "I have made repeated efforts through the Catholic Education Ministries, Caritas Family Services and, most recently, sought to try and mediate the matter with the family TO ASK THEM TO VOLUNTARILY NOT BRING ADAM TO CHURCH, but to no avail (emphasis mine). He admits he made no attempts to accommodate for the purposes of inclusion during this process.
Dr. John P. Miller May-29