Fostering Vocations: Autism and the Church’s Call to Belonging

[@JohnDutt714]

I agree with the other two comments

[@marknolette7232]

"The only thing worse than being talked about... is not being talked about!" - Oscar Wilde With all due respect to the brilliant Oscar Wilde, there is something worse than not being talked about. And that is... being poorly talked about, without empathy or a sense of justice or fairness. Speaking as an autistic priest, that is what I come away with after seeing this webinar. "How can this be?" you may ask. The panel consists of several credentialed experts, two of which have adult autistic children of their own. The moderator is a deacon, psychologist, and a seminary staff member. The panel includes an autistic priest. The panel gets some of the foundational notions correct. They say that autism is not evil nor is it a disease, but it is the way the Lord intended for His autistic children to be. They say that autistic people are human and deserve to be shown the dignity that every human being can expect to receive. Yet... something happens whenever the panel moves from theory to specific examples. The high ideals do not carry over. It's as though there's a misfiring synapse somewhere. Autistic people are not spoken of, or even to, with basic human dignity. A few examples (there are many): The two panelists who have adult autistic children tell potentially embarrassing stories about them, stories that most adult children would not want told without their express permission. Did the autistic children consent to this? If the rejoinder is that they are non-speaking, does that mean that they lack the means to understand and communicate consent? Did anyone even try? Why or why not? When asked what vocation their non-speaking autistic children might have, one panelist said that his daughter smiled at people at Mass, making them feel good. Nothing wrong with that as such, but is that it? Whenever church communities have set up opportunities for "neurotypical" parishioners to meet and get to know non-speaking autistic parishioners, the neurotypical ones all reported that they were made much better Christians by these encounters than they ever thought possible. Here is where talk of vocation for these non-speaking autistic people should have begun. The one autistic person on the panel is a recently-ordained priest who, while in seminary, was mentored by the moderator. Note the power differential. Yes, he's a priest, but he has no degree credentials and he had been under the tutelage of one of the other panelists. If they wanted to have autistic people on the panel, they should clearly be the equals of everyone else. There are a number of autistic people with all the requisite degrees.. And the autistic person should not be presented as a "pet on a leash" of one of the other panelists. Too harsh? At one point in the webinar, the moderator told the priest that, at one seminary faculty meeting, the faculty wasn't going to recommend the autistic seminarian for ordination, but the moderator stood up for him. Does anyone else not see how grossly inappropriate that statement was? Even if the moderator had said this - which is the kind of thing usually held in confidence.- before the seminary community alone, he would have been disciplined by the rector. But on a public webinar? This is treating the autistic priest with basic human dignity? I really, really felt sorry for Father John. May the Lord have mercy on everyone else. I could say more - much more - but I've made my point. If anyone from the Institute for Human Ecology is reading this, you've sponsored something that, in spite of any expectations to the contrary, has undermined the human dignity of autistic people. This is a scandal. This emperor never had clothes. Need I say more?

[@AutismConsecrated]

This webinar begs the question of whether the example set by its panelists upholds and reflects the principles of the Institute for Human Ecology, Catholic University of America, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability… or, more concisely, the tenets of basic Catholic social justice. To wit, throughout this webinar can be seen: -Failure to uphold the right to privacy of (1) nonspeaking autistic people; (2) children and minors; (3) persons not present on the webinar panel. -Failure to presume capacity to consent, and to seek that consent, from those about whom personal information is openly shared by name. If such consent was obtained, that needs to be mentioned at the outset. -Failure to presume competence in nonspeaking individuals. Panelists repeatedly declare their own, subjective assumptions about the thoughts, motives, aspirations, and capabilities (among many other things) of autistic people who were not present to corroborate or refute what is stated about them presumptively as fact. -Failures in the duties of panelists to protect confidential information and exemplify professional conduct. It is poor form for any psychologist to discuss client vulnerabilities in a public forum with said client as part of the panel (or, at all). -Presumption that disabled people do not have the same agency or capacity for vocational discernment as nondisabled people. A panel discussion on fostering autistic vocations would do well to start by asking what we can learn from autistic people, and how autistic people experience the discernment process, particularly those who do not speak and those who depend on sensory and perceptual processing accommodations to do what neurotypical people take for granted. Instead, this panel speaks for those who are nonspeaking and easily overwhelmed, suggesting simplistic vocations for them in the absence of their firsthand contributions. Panelists also speak in the broad hypothetical without much practical intent (e.g., imagining abandoned convents filled with ‘profoundly autistic’ people without discussing what their discernment, formation or community living processes would entail, and without addressing the fact that a majority of neurodivergent people are still turned away by religious orders the moment they disclose their autism diagnosis). In sum: This webinar falls far short of what would be expected from its title, the panelists, and their sponsoring agencies. We can do much better. We MUST do better.