Dear Amy: I keep thinking about our Christmas service at church and am wondering why I bothered to go.
It was very heartwarming to see families, complete from babies in carriers to great-grandparents, coming to the service. As the service progressed, the young children were getting restless. You could hear some cooing, some talking and from some, singing.
Although this was a little distracting, you could still focus on the service, if you worked at it. As the guest speaker began to talk, someone’s very young infant began to cry. The speaker tried to stay focused and talk a little louder.
The crying continued, and there the parents sat, trying to quiet the baby. Then the baby began to scream, blocking out the voice of the speaker, and still the parents sat. Finally they gave the baby a bottle, but by then the speaker had finished.
I’m not against children. I have children and grandchildren. I believe fully in religious education for children beginning at a young age. I believe that families should enjoy the warmth of experiencing holiday celebrations together. But I do not believe that these rights should supersede those of everyone else in church to hear and enjoy the service.
Should one parent have slipped out with the baby to another room or taken the baby to the nursery that the church provides?
– Wish I’d Heard the Service
Dear Wish: I’m completely with you. Now, what are we going to do about it? Your church should take steps to make sure that families with babies can witness the service without disturbing other worshipers.
Because you sound so reasonable and thoroughly in favor of families attending Christmas services, perhaps you could join the worship committee at your church to make this easier on everyone. Your committee could develop a “crying room,” where the service is piped in and where parents can take their babies during crying jags. Perhaps your church would be able to place the crying room so that parents and babies can view the service through a window.
Parents should be notified of this special accommodation when they arrive for services, and if they are not regular churchgoers (as sometimes happens during Christmas), ushers should make sure that they are reminded of this option if their babies begin to cry.
. . .
Dear Amy: Our new neighbors take frequent week-long vacations. I’ve just learned that, for the second time, my husband has agreed – without my knowledge or consent – to feed their cat while they are gone.
They leave the cat outdoors in the rain and cold while they travel. If they have a vet, they’ve not bothered to share that information with us, nor do they give us an emergency contact number, so we’d be on our own figuring out what to do if the cat were injured or became ill during this time.
The cat gets into fights with other cats and has killed a squirrel in our front yard, so an emergency is more than a distant possibility.
I am upset with them for what I think is animal neglect and with my husband for enabling their bad behavior. How would you handle this?
– Worried
Dear Worried: I agree that leaving a cat the way your neighbors do is irresponsible. Your husband could handle this like a big boy and either refuse to feed the cat altogether or to ask that the cat be left inside while he cares for it. He should also have access to all relevant veterinary information, if he chooses to feed the cat.
Where I live, if a cat is free-ranging and seems to be neglected, neighbors have a tendency to call the ASPCA. Our no-kill shelter will take in neglected and abandoned animals and adopt them out to responsible owners. When your neighbors leave their cat with no available shelter, they run the risk that they will lose their cat through injury, illness or adoption.
Send questions via e-mail to askamy@tribune.com or by mail to Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.
