Austistics can't go to heaven

[evident]

Originally posted by: Kev
From the description of the nonsense he pulls I think the church is more than justified in keeping him away. Autism or no autism.

i agree. its a bad situation. the kid attacks people and "revs engines" ( who the hell keeps keys in their cars???)

and your title is misleading and flamebait

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

Depends...can they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior? I'm not aware of freebies in the bible offered to the handicapped...

You're forgetting that the Catholic church doesn't exist because of the Bible, but rather the Bible exists because of the Catholic church. The Catholic church also doesn't list as a requirement to Heaven that one must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

really?...

Really. I mean that as a blanket statement, as in every Catholic is not required to. A child who is baptized and dies at the age of 2 will never had the chance to learn about Jesus, much less understand the concept of God. The child will still get to see Heaven. Now for someone like me, it's a requirement to accept that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make up three persons in one God. (How appropriate that last Sunday was Trinity Sunday.)

That's a nice assumption but do you have a credible link or quoted source to such 'slack' eligibility requirements? Preferably quoted within a version of the bible of course...but whatever you can do...

It's assumed that anyone that does not have a conscious free will gets to heaven. It's how another hole in the theory is patched. It's not written in the Bible.

And who or what defines a conscious free will?

By governmental standards, a child does not have the capacity to decide what is in his/her own best interests. If you are then referring back to the Catholic church as a source of reference, then they don't go to heaven at all. They end up in Limbo.

The Limbo of Infants is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

Maybe those that argue the loudest/most about those of us that are non-Catholics not knowing their religion ought to hit the books a little harder also.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

And who or what defines a conscious free will?

By governmental standards, a child does not have the capacity to decide what is in his/her own best interests. If you are then referring back to the Catholic church as a source of reference, then they don't go to heaven at all. They end up in Limbo.

Thanks for proving my point. Organized religion of any kind is man made and requirements are completely subjective to which flavor of religion you adhere to. Just for the record, "best interests" is not the same as conscious free will.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
heaven?? do people still buy into this shit? I can see having a relationship with god but come on.....heaven? 4 realz?

87% of Americans do, so I'd guess you're in the minority.

Just like even half way intelligent people are in the minority. Where does this so called "87%" come from? Some obscure statistic which was produced from a survey or what? And where was that survey conducted? And how?

Chances are it was a survey, one conducted at the MALL, and the only people who actually wasted their time with it suddenly make up 87% of America?

Or is the 87% from the number of american's who attend some church? Or is it people who list a religion on their census form? Just because people list a religion doesn't mean they believe in heaven, it doesn't even mean they believe in god.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

By governmental standards, a child does not have the capacity to decide what is in his/her own best interests. If you are then referring back to the Catholic church as a source of reference, then they don't go to heaven at all. They end up in Limbo.

The Limbo of Infants is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

Maybe those that argue the loudest/most about those of us that are non-Catholics not knowing their religion ought to hit the books a little harder also.

Did you even read what you just posted? Limbo is not exactly codified Catholic belief.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

By governmental standards, a child does not have the capacity to decide what is in his/her own best interests. If you are then referring back to the Catholic church as a source of reference, then they don't go to heaven at all. They end up in Limbo.

The Limbo of Infants is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

Maybe those that argue the loudest/most about those of us that are non-Catholics not knowing their religion ought to hit the books a little harder also.

Did you even read what you just posted? Limbo is not exactly codified Catholic belief.

Maybe you should have read the sentence after the one you bolded as well. If the church is stressing the "hope" that they attain heaven, they lean more towards validating that they are not automagically accepted into heaven than they do that they are.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You mean this sentence: Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.

Those silly Catholic theologians...just can't make up their minds can they.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
No exceptions eh?

RightIsWrong is acting like a typical petulant child pretending to know things that he doesn't understand. Look, there are plenty of things you could take the Catholic church (or any church for that matter) to task for. Don't be stupid and try to show that you -- someone who is not Catholic -- knows the doctrine and rules better than those who actually are Catholic. Idiot.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't know all the details, but I'm certain the church would not have taken extraordinary steps unless they were needed, and a judge agreed at least enough to grant a restraining order.

An unfortunate situation, but not one you can pin on the church.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
No exceptions eh?

RightIsWrong is acting like a typical petulant child pretending to know things that he doesn't understand. Look, there are plenty of things you could take the Catholic church (or any church for that matter) to task for. Don't be stupid and try to show that you -- someone who is not Catholic -- knows the doctrine and rules better than those who actually are Catholic. Idiot.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't know all the details, but I'm certain the church would not have taken extraordinary steps unless they were needed, and a judge agreed at least enough to grant a restraining order.

An unfortunate situation, but not one you can pin on the church.

Well then, as a life-long, practicing Catholic....what is the official church's take on Limbo and does it apply to the mentally handicapped as well as infants?

I'm sure that you, as the astute, all knowing Catholic can quickly recite the doctrine without any need for reference. And I am sure, since the bible hasn't changed in a couple thousand years that church doctrine has been just as consistent on the topic.

Or maybe you are just acting like an arrogant prick of a talking head that keeps reciting talking points without actually knowing the meaning behind what you are parroting.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

Or that the Popemobile needs bulletproof glass. :laugh:

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

Depends...can they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior? I'm not aware of freebies in the bible offered to the handicapped...

You're forgetting that the Catholic church doesn't exist because of the Bible, but rather the Bible exists because of the Catholic church. The Catholic church also doesn't list as a requirement to Heaven that one must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

really?...

Really. I mean that as a blanket statement, as in every Catholic is not required to. A child who is baptized and dies at the age of 2 will never had the chance to learn about Jesus, much less understand the concept of God. The child will still get to see Heaven. Now for someone like me, it's a requirement to accept that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make up three persons in one God. (How appropriate that last Sunday was Trinity Sunday.)

That's a nice assumption but do you have a credible link or quoted source to such 'slack' eligibility requirements? Preferably quoted within a version of the bible of course...but whatever you can do...

If you really want an answer, you can read it here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

This is one of those questions I'd ask a kid to my parents: "If a kid is raised by wolves in the woods will he go to Hell because no one ever told him about God?"

All who believe in God do so because he has given them the grace to.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Newsflash: The Catholic church is not a place for people whom the clergy can't control, to be.

The only problem the catholic church has here, is that the 13 year old boy is freaking huge and the priests can easily molest him.


I have a daughter that judging by the video is worse than he is. She's only 6 now, but she is more than a handful and is very strong. She doesn't "assault" people like they say this kid does, but she does like physical contact with grown ups and likes to give/get hugs. As she gets older she is getting harder to control. She has vocal outbursts and can go into a crying fit with no notice.
We do not go to church, and if we did, we would stop going to any church that told us our kid was a distraction. Any "Church" that doesn't practice what it preaches is no church, but a business entity that is only looking out for it's bottom line.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: markgm

All who believe in God do so because he has given them the grace to.

And all who don't can thank evolution for providing them with the sense to know better.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And who or what defines a conscious free will?

By governmental standards, a child does not have the capacity to decide what is in his/her own best interests. If you are then referring back to the Catholic church as a source of reference, then they don't go to heaven at all. They end up in Limbo.

The Limbo of Infants is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

Maybe those that argue the loudest/most about those of us that are non-Catholics not knowing their religion ought to hit the books a little harder also.

The Church says that every child should be baptized, therefore an autistic child most certainly would have been if his parents are taking him to Mass.

And as I said above, it doesn't matter who here defines free will, or the ability to reason. Your salvation is between you and God, no one else knows for sure what you believe in your heart.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
heaven?? do people still buy into this shit? I can see having a relationship with god but come on.....heaven? 4 realz?

87% of Americans do, so I'd guess you're in the minority.

Just like even half way intelligent people are in the minority. Where does this so called "87%" come from? Some obscure statistic which was produced from a survey or what? And where was that survey conducted? And how?

Chances are it was a survey, one conducted at the MALL, and the only people who actually wasted their time with it suddenly make up 87% of America?

Or is the 87% from the number of american's who attend some church? Or is it people who list a religion on their census form? Just because people list a religion doesn't mean they believe in heaven, it doesn't even mean they believe in god.

Clearly you wouldn't believe the statistic no matter how it was obtained, so why bother questioning it?

 

[Throckmorton]

Why didn't they keep using the "cry room"?

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

No, he wouldn't. There was an ancient argument that alluded to the same school of thought, that if the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ then you could bake poison into the bread and no one would die.

If God wanted us all to be happy he'd just create us and put us straight in Heaven too by that logic. But that's not why we're here. He gave us free will so that we could love him by choice. It's the same thing that makes having a significant other or a child tell you that they love you mean so much. If you force it out of them it means nothing.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
No exceptions eh?

RightIsWrong is acting like a typical petulant child pretending to know things that he doesn't understand. Look, there are plenty of things you could take the Catholic church (or any church for that matter) to task for. Don't be stupid and try to show that you -- someone who is not Catholic -- knows the doctrine and rules better than those who actually are Catholic. Idiot.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't know all the details, but I'm certain the church would not have taken extraordinary steps unless they were needed, and a judge agreed at least enough to grant a restraining order.

An unfortunate situation, but not one you can pin on the church.

Well then, as a life-long, practicing Catholic....what is the official church's take on Limbo and does it apply to the mentally handicapped as well as infants?

I'm sure that you, as the astute, all knowing Catholic can quickly recite the doctrine without any need for reference. And I am sure, since the bible hasn't changed in a couple thousand years that church doctrine has been just as consistent on the topic.

Or maybe you are just acting like an arrogant prick of a talking head that keeps reciting talking points without actually knowing the meaning behind what you are parroting.

The short answer is, we don't know. God never told the Church, as it isn't important to our serving Him. We can only guess. Like people speculate on who is going to win an election or what the price of oil is going to be, we can only guess. We use all of the available information and then make a guess. When the time comes we'll find out.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

Or that the Popemobile needs bulletproof glass. :laugh:

Though ironically, look how much people learned about forgiveness when Pope John Paul II was shot.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

Or that the Popemobile needs bulletproof glass. :laugh:

Though ironically, look how much people learned about forgiveness when Pope John Paul II was shot.

who?

 

[markgm]

It's scary to think you're raising a kid!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Hmm... I don't see anything in there about any declaration by the church that autistic children can not go to heaven. Your title is not only misleading, it's a complete fabrication.

I don't know what exactly has happened when this family (including the child) attends church since I'm not there, but I'm guessing the church does not those kinds of steps lightly, and they've also (according to the article) offered plenty of alternative solutions. At some point the church has to take into account the safety and welfare of other churchgoers. Further, those folks have no legal rights to be at that church, so if the church doesn't want them there for whatever reason, they'll just need to find another place to attend.

I don't think that the title is misleading according to the Catholic church's stance on attendance:

Going to church can be mandatory in a particular faith. The Catholic Church, for example, makes it compulsory for members to attend church on Sundays and designated holy days. The Catholic faith is centered around the ten commandments, so the third commandment, "Thou shall keep holy the Sabbath" mandates church attendance. As with any other group or organization, if one chooses the Catholic Church, one agrees to abide by the rules

One can make the point that if you are unable to attend church, you are unable to receive the message of the lord as given by the strict guidelines of the church which negates your ability to proceed to the kingdom of heaven.

1 Corinthians 7:14

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BoomerD
As has already been said, I see NOTHING in the article that says autistic people can't go to Heaven. (if there is such a place)

I DO however support the church's right to keep the kid out. If he's disruptive, potentially violent, and out of control, not only do they have the right to keep him out, they have a duty to the other parishoners to keep him out for their safety.

If God wants the people to be safe in church shouldn't he take care of it? I always laugh when the wannabelievers of some great omnipotent cosmic muffin need the courts to take care of them.

Or that the Popemobile needs bulletproof glass. :laugh:

Though ironically, look how much people learned about forgiveness when Pope John Paul II was shot.

who?

This guy.

 

[DrPizza]

In an affidavit, Walz said the church "explored and offered many options for accommodations that would assist the family while protecting the safety of parishioners. The family refused those offers of accommodation.

I spent 8 years working with the developmentally disabled and mentally handicapped, i.e. retarded. Along the way, I ran across 3 mentally retarded and developmentally disabled adults who somewhere along the lines had become Catholics. (Wild guess: Catholic priests held mass at Willowbrook? btw, look up Willowbrook to see what type of individuals I was dealing with. This was the place where Geraldo got his big break and a Peabody award.)

Well, one of the adults was frequently assaultive and disruptive. (99 assaults in his first 20 days in my classroom.) The Church accommodated him and the others by having a special service for them. And, I'd bet that in the story, the Church probably made a similar offer which was refused by the family.