People with Disabilities and Their Families in the Roman Catholic Church in Poland: An Analysis of Barriers to Participation in Religious Practices

Abstract

The available research suggests that the rate of involvement of people with disabilities and their families in the life of the Church is significantly lower than that of people without disabilities. The engagement of people with disabilities is largely dependent on (a) the level of religiosity; (b) intrinsic motivation; (c) the level of trust in the institutions of the Church; and (d) broadly understood accessibility factors. Barriers experienced by people with disabilities are complex in nature, and make these people dependent on the help of others. Overcoming them requires significant investment, commitment, and change in the Church institution. These issues are relatively rarely addressed in the literature. The few, usually partial studies tend to concentrate on specific disabilities, discussed with no reference to the family context. However, it is usually the case that the religiosity and church activity of a person with a disability are firmly rooted in their family reality, shaped by the level of religiosity of their parents, and sometimes dependent on their presence and involvement. The aim of this article, which is both theoretical and empirical in nature, is to answer the question of which barriers form an obstacle to participation in religious life for people with disabilities and their families in Poland. This study uses the results of a nationwide qualitative research (focus group interview method) conducted among people with physical and intellectual disabilities, the hard-of-hearing and the deaf, the visually impaired, and their carers. Data analysis enabled the identification of the following barriers: infrastructural, personal and organizational (family-related and extra-familial). These research results can provide guidance in pastoral work with people with disabilities and their families, improving not only the quality of their religious experience, but also the number of the faithful in the Church community.

1. Introduction

Religion is a factor that empowers personality integration and dynamics […], an element conducive to maintaining social order […]. As a system of values, religion provides criteria for choosing desired behavior patterns (Wnuk and Marcinkowski 2012, p. 240). Religion is a source of strength and support both through community and through contact with God. Often emphasized are its influences on a sense of meaning in life, self-understanding (Wojtasik 2004; Campbell et al. 2010, pp. 11–13), facilitation of the process of self-adaptation to disability, making sense of suffering, and the fact that religion provides answers to existential questions (Janocha 2011, p. 168). Various inner sensations, experiences, intellectual content and its structure, attitudes, hope levels, and sense of security, but also the interactions of the religious sphere with other aspects of human psychological and social life are subject to extensive empirical analysis in the literature of the field.

Three elements are distinguished as constitutive for any religion: belief, practices, and organization. Four elements are indicated as the basis of religious practice: willingness and ability to be together; inclination and ability to act together; common goals; and communicative competence in the sphere of religion. The operative basis of religious practice constitutes skills (capabilities), habits, and motivations (Walesa 1994, p. 98; 2006, p. 116). An essential element of a person’s religious attitude is their participation in religious practices prescribed or recommended by the Church. Studies on religiosity often refer to religious practices—with a number of indicators specified for this category—as one of the basic parameters of religiosity. The most frequently researched practices are the mandatory ones, such as attending Mass, prayer, participation in the sacraments, and participation in catechesis. Researchers also explore non-mandatory practices, called pious acts, such as participation in parish and prayer groups, observance of religious customs, and reading of the Bible and other religious texts (Mariański 2014, p. 57). Taking into account the level of a person’s religious awareness, a distinction is made between one-time practices (such as receiving the Sacrament of Baptism) and multiple practices (like attending Mass regularly). Religious practices can also be classified as festive or everyday, private or public, and church-wide or local (Pietruszka 2021, p. 84).

As indicated in the available research, people with disabilities participate less frequently than people without disabilities in public religious practices. They are also less likely to participate in the sacraments and far less likely to participate in non-mandatory practices (Hodge and Conroy 2019; Janocha 2011). The available research allows us to conclude that the rate of involvement of people with disabilities and their families in the life of religious communities largely depends on their level of religiosity and intrinsic motivation, but also on their level of trust towards the institution of the Church and the broadly understood accessibility conditions.

The accessibility barriers for people with disabilities are of complex character, and affect their participation to an extent incomparable to people without disabilities, since the former group depends largely on the help of others. Providing infrastructural accessibility options requires significant investment efforts, which—in turn—depend on the commitment and changes in the Church institution.

These issues are relatively rarely addressed in the literature of the subject. The few, usually partial, studies tend to focus on particular disabilities, without considering the family environment of people with disabilities. It should, however, be emphasized that in most cases both the religiosity and the Church activity of a person with a disability are very much embedded in the family reality and sometimes depend on family bonds and support. Therefore, it is legitimate to look at the topic at hand from the perspective not only of people with disabilities, but also in the context of their family and carers.

The aim of this article is to answer the question of what barriers to participation in religious life and practices are experienced by persons with disabilities and their families in Poland.

2. The Religiosity of a Person with a Disability and the Family Context

Everyone’s religiosity grows in a specific environment. The family home is the place where the child acquires their first religious behavioral patterns and receives an integral upbringing which is then continued in the extra-familial environment (Finke 1996, pp. 108–10; Zych 2012, p. 120). The family—as a multidimensional microstructure—is subject to socio-cultural influences, rules of functioning that give rhythm and meaning to the existence of the entire family. Although Lipiec (2015, p. 163) argues that the Christian formation of people with disabilities in the family is primarily concerned with children, this task needs a broader approach. Disability is a condition that can be acquired at different life stages, so understanding one’s own life, suffering, and the meaning of events in a Christian perspective can take place at any period in life. Disability can be a new, unexpected challenge to religious formation. The foundation of one’s faith can be shaken; its role in life can take on a completely different meaning for a person with a disability. Understood this way, Christian formation has a permanent and integrative character.

Particular importance is attributed to the family atmosphere, including the world outlook and attitudes, people, value system, self-respect, which bear direct impact on the attitude to religious principles and values. In his research on family in its function as an environment for the formation of religious attitudes, Władysław Prężyna draws attention to a basic factor that influences the religiousness of children: the religiousness of parents. Catechization and contact with the clergy during childhood are also particularly important (Stepulak 2010, pp. 207–36). Studies by A. Weigert and D. Thomas regarding parental influences and adolescent religiosity show that the most religious adolescents are those who declare significant levels of parental support and control, while the least religious are those who declare the lowest levels of parental support and control. H. Nelsen observes a correlation of parental religiosity and the severity of marital conflict with children’s religiosity (see Podczasik 2014, p. 170).

A properly functioning family needs to perform the religious function—as is regularly mentioned in education studies. The religious function is to enforce religious obligations and to bring up children in religious faith. This is most influenced by the cultivation of norms, values, and principles in the family home by its individual members, which relate to the professed religion, its requirements—as adequate to the degree of religiosity in the family (Tyszka 2001, pp. 45–84). Thus, the family home is the place where a relationship with God emerges, and the dynamics of this relationship is shaped through practice.

However, it is worth emphasizing that the role of parents and loved ones in religious growth does not only have religious consequences. The family religiosity levels define the levels of acceptance for people with disabilities, their deficits, attitudes towards them, and the understanding and fulfillment of care and support tasks. Finally, it is important to emphasize the strong impact of the disability on the functioning of the other, non-disabled family members, parents and loved ones. It is common for their religious activity to be determined by the experience of disability of the child/husband/wife/sister/brother (see Mikołajczuk and Zielińska-Król 2023). The disability of a family member affects the atmosphere of the entire home community, but it also provides opportunities (or it thwarts them) for supporting the functioning of the persons with disabilities on many levels, including religious activity. Thus, explorations into the possibilities for a person with a disability to participate in religious practices need to cover the people who are in their immediate environment, and whose lives intermingle.

3. Methodology

In 2020, nationwide qualitative research was conducted (using a focus group interview (FGI); purposeful sampling) among people experiencing disabilities (people with physical disabilities, deaf and hearing impaired, blind and visually impaired, and people with reduced mental standards).

Seven Polish dioceses were selected for research that met the criteria of the religiosity index (wr) and the level of urbanization (pu) at three levels: high, medium, and low. This research was carried out in the following dioceses: Warsaw (pu—high; wr—medium), Łódź (pu—high; wr—low), Opole (pu—medium; wr—high), Kielce (pu—medium; wr—medium), Warmińska (pu—medium; wr—low), Tarnowska (pu—niski; wr—high), and Białostocka (pu—niski; wr—średn). None of the dioceses presented either of the extreme positions (pu—high; vr—low or pu—low; vr—low). To select the indicated dioceses, data from the Statistical Institute of the Catholic Church were used, containing the basic demographic data of diocesan priests and religious leaders in dioceses in Poland, and using a parish database containing basic information on the type of parish (urban, urban–rural, and rural) and databases containing individual data used to calculate the dominicantes, communicantes, and participantes indicators.

A tool in focus group research (FGI) for people with disabilities was a focus group research scenario. It was a list of issues and topics that the study group raised during the study. The scenario was a tool supporting the moderator’s work. The starting point for developing the focus group study scenario was to identify the situation and needs of the study group, which was achieved by analyzing the literature on the subject. The actual research was preceded by pilot research, which allowed the respondents’ understanding of the topics discussed to be checked and confirming the validity of the topics discussed. The pilot research made it possible to modify the scenario in terms of the specificity of a given group; in this case, the type of disability. Pilot research was conducted on 3 groups (8 people each), including 2 groups of disabled people and 1 group of caregivers.

In order to identify the situation of people with disabilities in the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, it was assumed that in order to achieve the objectives of the study, the following would be examined:

(1)

Fifteen homogeneous focus groups (three groups for each type of disability, taking into account the proportion of the degree of disability—light, moderate, or severe). The group distribution included all seven dioceses indicated above. Due to specific communication difficulties, deaf people did not participate in the focus group study (only hard of hearing people); therefore, the complementary research method used was 6 individual interviews (IDIs) with deaf people.

(2)

Seven heterogeneous focus groups (different types of disabilities), one in each of the studied dioceses.

(3)

Five focus groups with the families/legal guardians of disabled people (one group for one type of disability).

(4)

One group of caregivers of people with severe intellectual disabilities whose personal participation in the study would not be possible.

(5)

Three focus groups with disabled members of pastoral groups and Catholic activists.

The research sample in the focus group studies was n = 254 people (on average 8–9 people in each group). Focus group interviews (FGIs) and individual in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted by trained people, and the meetings were recorded in the form of video from which the recording was double-transcribed (by two independent persons). Participants in the research were recruited by the research institution through the individual contacts of the researchers in governmental and non-governmental entities operating in the field of disability; the respondents decided to participate in the study without having to disclose their data (as long as they met the established criteria). This research fulfills ethical criteria and has obtained Ethical Approval.

An interview script for people with intellectual disabilities and developmental disorders (autism, Asperger’s syndrome) was adapted into easy language and in the form of drawings.

The structure of the focus group interview (and individual interviews) used to examine people with disabilities was constructed on the basis of the main issues around the following barriers:

-

To what extent and in which areas are people with disabilities already active in parish life?

-

What barriers do people with disabilities encounter in the context of participating in religious life?

-

What expectations and needs do disabled people express towards pastors and the parish community?

-

What mechanisms exist for including and excluding people with disabilities from the religious life of the parish?

The questions formulated in this way allowed us to obtain an answer to the main research question—also the aim of the study—what barriers prevent people with disabilities and their families from participating in religious life and practices in Poland?

This qualitative research was focused on ensuring maximum variability in the sample, allowing us to capture variability and diversity within the research field. The adopted assumption made it possible to learn about the areas of activity in the religious life of people with various types of disabilities and with varying degrees of intensity of these disabilities, who live in different types of towns.

Due to the subject of the study, it was assumed that people who declared their Roman Catholic denomination were invited to participate in qualitative research. At the same time, however, no level of religiosity was assumed because the degree of religious activity was discussed. The analysis of the interviews consisted of reconstructing the knowledge from the statements of the interview participants on the topics specified in the scenario and was not of a quantitative nature.

The following actions were used to analyze the obtained statements (see: Kvale 2004, s. 191–212):

-

Coding of meanings—this involved assigning verbal labels to a given fragment of each interview, which allowed for the subsequent quick identification and categorization of statements.

-

Condensation of meanings—shortening meanings into shorter phrases without changing the meaning of the statement.

-

Categorization of meanings—this consisted of systematizing and conceptualizing statements, as well as assigning statements to more general categories, and at the next stage, assigning text fragments to central topics.

The categories were developed in two ways:

-

In connection with the central themes of the interviews.

-

Formulated ad hoc during the analysis.

It should be emphasized that qualitative research allows for a better understanding of the needs and expectations of people with intellectual and physical disabilities, as well as the opportunity to make an in-depth diagnosis of important problems regarding the participation of disabled people in parish life. Thanks to direct individual and group conversations, it is possible to establish closer contact with respondents who, due to their experiences with a disease, require more time to open up and talk about their problems and limitations. The limitations of our data collection and analysis arose from the specific context of the study (a diverse group of respondents with disabilities). These limitations included the need to develop specific communication relationships and adapt questions to each respondent; the difficulty in assessing the range of spontaneous, cognitively rich, specific, and adequate responses of interview participants with disabilities; the occurrence of statements that were logically unrelated to the topic of the interview, or inaccurate, brief, or prompted or suggested by the interviewer; and the involvement of third parties in the interviews (e.g., mother or carer). The interviewer’s development and explanation of the thematic threads obtained from participants’ responses, as well as the quality of the transcript, were satisfactory (with some minor stylistic and typographical errors, and occasional gaps in the transcripts with the annotation: incomprehensible).

4. Results

The world of barriers relating to the participation of people with disabilities in religious life is markedly different from that of non-disabled people. In the case of people with disabilities, constraints of all kinds overlap, amplifying their impact in a negative synergy. Understandably, the difficulties correlate with (1) the type of dysfunction experienced, but also (2) the time when it occurs (congenital, acquired); (3) age; (4) personality traits; (5) self-efficacy and self-esteem; (6) support received and social integration; (7) personal activity levels; and (8) family system and relationships. The study results presented here focus on barriers that relate to the type of disability experienced by the respondents.

4.1. Hearing Impaired Persons

Participating in the Church and its various communities activates a need—which today is increasingly marginalized—for human attachment and a quest for a secure place in a world of values. For the hearing-impaired, attending Mass or other community gatherings is particularly challenging. Such congregation spaces witness high saturation with all kinds of sounds, limiting the ability of a person with a hearing impairment to concentrate. These people often choose to visit the church when Mass is not celebrated, where there are no people in the church and the number of audial stimuli is limited. In this way, their exposition to uncomfortable and problematic environmental conditions is minimized.

“I attend Mass very rarely. I usually go to church when it is empty. When there are no people, no hustle and bustle, no bells, no children running around. I just physically can’t stand such situations. When at Mass, I find it problematic to concentrate because of these factors. I like to be alone with God. Then we can hear one another… so I think. It gives me more satisfaction than attending Mass and being stressed by the atmosphere around me.”

(person with a disability)

Deaf people experience problems distinct from those of hard-of-hearing people. Therefore, they require a different type of assistance and care. Deaf people’s comfort is primarily based on the communicative competence of the accompanying persons and depends on their knowledge of sign language.

“I’m appreciative of the priests because they always tried to help me. They didn’t always understand me because they didn’t know sign language, but they were kind to me.”

(person with a disability)

“In our community, we feel completely marginalised, contact is problematic. Even when there’s a carol service, it’s also a painful issue because the priests mostly do not sign and behaves as if I were not there. If my wife didn’t sign, the priest probably wouldn’t visit me at all because he would be afraid that we wouldn’t get along.”

(person with a disability)

“Sometimes, at my request, there is someone who signs at Mass, but they don’t know all the words in the Church dictionary and it’s difficult to understand everything. And as for confession, it’s even worse. I have to drive a lot further to be able to make an appointment with a priest to confess me. And I know I am not the only one with this problem. I don’t blame the priest because what can he do if he doesn’t know how to sign?”

(person with a disability)

Building a welcoming and inclusive space is not possible if the priest and/or people in the community do not use sign language. This situation confirms the necessity to approach people with disabilities in their family context; most often the close ones speak sign language. What is more, it is important to point out the insufficient knowledge on behalf of the priests as regards the criteria of the Sacrament of Penance. Confession is possible in the presence and through an approved sign language interpreter (1983 CIC, c. 990). The interpreter is strictly obliged to observe the secrecy of confession (1983 CIC, c. 983, §2, c. 1388, §2). Even if there is no priest who uses sign language, the presence of an interpreter is not obligatory, but in this case, the priest should allow the confession to be made in writing. The priest is to return the written material to the penitent or destroy it. The clergy should allow the deaf a choice of the method of communication.

In their responses, deaf people and their families highlight the fact that the specific nature of the dysfunction makes it impossible for them to engage more actively in the life of the community. Involvement is limited to passive participation in Mass, which usually takes the form of watching the rites without understanding the content.

“She is not involved in anything beyond attending Mass. Although she would love to, our daughter’s involvement is minimal due to the fact that she is deaf.”

(carer)

Deaf and hard-of-hearing people are also very rarely members of the liturgical service groups, parish structures, or prayer groups because they usually require good hearing to communicate with the other participants, although this is not always a prerequisite. In rare cases, they participate in the liturgical service at Masses addressed to a group of the faithful with hearing disabilities.

“I really wanted to help in the community, the priest allowed me to collect an offering. So I collect donations during mass.”

(person with a disability)

Respondent (R): I am not engaged in any form because there are no such communities for the deaf.

Researcher (B): And if they were, would you like to participate?

R: Yes, I would like to. I would love to be involved together with my friends.

B: And what other activities would you like to participate in?

R: Something like a choir, because you can sign religious songs. It would be possible to have something like that, but it’s never been at our church, although there are a lot of us in the area because we go to one school.”

(persons with disabilities)

4.2. People with Intellectual Disabilities

For people with intellectual disabilities, the barriers depend on the degree of impairment. Therefore, it is important to distinguish at least two groups: (1) people with mild and (2) people with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities.

The faithful with mild intellectual disabilities very often function as autonomous individuals or require little involvement on the part of their carers. In this case, participation in the life of the parish looks quite similar to that of people without disabilities. Thus, there are hardly any barriers typical of this disability. However, in spite of their considerable autonomy, they experience stigmatization as being unable of active participation in the community other than attending Mass.

“Sometimes I offered to help with retreats or when there is an event, but I don’t think they want me because no one has found an activity for me.”

(person with a disability)

“My son wanted very much to be an altar server, but unfortunately, the priest decided that his ‘condition’ could distract others and he might behave uncontrollably. My son was very much upset by this refusal.”

(carer)

“I once wanted to go on a pilgrimage: just for one day. But my parents wouldn’t let me because they were afraid I wouldn’t be able to make it without them. They didn’t even want me to go with everyone else for Confirmation.”

(person with a disability)

In the case of people with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities, the barrier is not so much the specificity of the dysfunction itself, but the attitude of people accompanying the person with a disability. The priest, carers, and the other faithful of the community can contribute to either inclusion or exclusion for these people. Apart from the issue of infrastructural accessibility—which sometimes makes it difficult to reach the church—the most critical issue seems to be that of people’s openness, kindness, and understanding. In addition, the level of dysfunction, which is often accompanied by a combination of difficulties in functioning, involves the family to such an extent that not only is the person with a disability not active in the church, but this extends to their carers.

“No, we don’t go to church because I feel like I’m putting my own child on stage, and everyone is looking at him. It’s difficult for me when others are watching. I stay at home with him. We happen to be in church when no one is there. I see how my daughter changes, how she experiences the place. I don’t know how much she understands, but I can see a change in her behaviour.”

(carers)

“I was once asked to leave Mass because my son was making loud noises, moving around a lot. He was probably disturbing others, maybe distracting them. But this was his way of experiencing the event. I’m not angry, I understand. But church is certainly not trying to be the place for such people.”

(carer)

“I don’t want all this going to Mass, it costs us all too much… Time, strength, nerves. Besides, I don’t think anyone really wants us there. When the priest comes to a visit, the question of our presence is not even raised. It is as if it does not matter whether we are there, or not. Or maybe they are ashamed to say something… I prefer to stay at home and watch Mass on TV. My son watches sometimes, but I don’t think it is of interest to him.”

(carer)

“No one helps me. How can I go to Mass with my son? It’s impossible. So he doesn’t go, and I don’t go, either. He won’t stay home by himself, someone has to be close all the time.”

(carer)

“It took me long time to find a priest to confess my daughter; it was not easy. Everyone kept saying there was no need: after all, she doesn’t sin; besides, she doesn’t understand. But I know it matters to her a lot.”

(carer)

“I wonder if there is a point in her going to Communion or Confirmation? I don’t think so. She’s baptised; that was necessary. But she really doesn’t understand, and why should she need Confession or Confirmation?”

(carer)

4.3. Visually Impaired Persons

Visually impaired people are in an unique situation, as their disability requires specific knowledge and preparation of others and of their environment. The visually impaired and blind cannot cope autonomously in larger gatherings, such as congregations or services, pilgrimages, or other events that bring together larger groups of worshippers. Visually impaired believers usually require constant assistance from others as they face barriers related to both movement and perception of the surrounding reality (Maciejewska 2021). Therefore, the critical role of all kinds of formal as well as informal organizations at a church/parish is to create appropriate conditions for their participation in the religious life of the community. A lack of Braille signage and insufficient infrastructural facilities can be noticed in many public places, including churches. In the respondents’ statements, difficulties were indicated in receiving Communion administered silently by the priest and in navigating unfamiliar spaces—between pews, pillars, or decorations. The presence of guide dogs in the church is also a contentious issue.

“I go to church, I attend Mass, but I feel like I am marginalised. I am visually impaired, but neither the screen is adapted for people like me, nor anything else in the church.”

(person with a disability)

“Apart from the fact that I can’t see, I am a normal person, and I have a normal live, and they still treat me as if I were worse. That’s how it feels, in any case. Maybe I’m over-sensitive, but after all I my needs are anything like sophisticated.”

(person with a disability)

“I can’t see, but my hearing is sharp and extremely sensitive. It bothers me when it’s too loud in the church and the acoustic conditions are bad. I can’t concentrate, and it irritates me a lot. And when I’m in the church where there are a lot of loudspeakers, it is a huge problem to me since I can’t find my way around, my ears fail me.”

(person with a disability)

“It has never happened that a priest should have a problem with my guide dog, but I’ve heard several times from people that church is no place for a dog. What can you do, they don’t understand.”

(person with a disability)

4.4. Persons with Reduced Mobility

People with mobility disabilities are particularly sensitive to the inconveniences of church infrastructure, especially in older premises. Barriers include both stairs and lack of wheelchair ramps, but also narrow aisles between pews that prevent free passage. Access to the confessional or sacristy is generally difficult. In addition, it is impossible to be a lector or an altar server; in the vast majority of buildings, access to the altar is obstructed by steps with no ramp. Wheelchair users are forced to ask for help to get into the church and move around. This is a major inconvenience that often makes people with disabilities choose to stay at home.

“Indeed, these old churches are built to be nice edifices, but they are hardly functional, they are not adapted for people with disabilities (…), I’ve noticed that the newer churches, for the most part, already have these quite well adapted ramps. There are stairs and ramps on the side. Like in my parish, it’s not some latest construction, but it’s all there.”

(person with a disability)

“I haven’t been able to go to confession like everyone else because either it’s not possible to get my wheelchair in, or if I do get in, I can’t position myself to be able to talk to the priest.”

(person with a disability)

“Yes, I could be a lector or an altar server, and I like to read. But that’s impossible! How do I get to the altar?”

(person with a disability)

Infrastructural barriers are not exclusively caused by missing architectural adaptations to the needs of people experiencing mobility or wheelchair obstacles. An equally severe problem is the inability of people with disabilities to take care of their physiological needs within the church premises. This is disadvantageous in that it involves moving and traveling longer distances, which poses a difficulty for both the person with a disability and their carer.

B: What makes it particularly difficult for you to access the church?

R1: (…) it bothers me a lot that there are no toilets around the church, in the immediate area. It is very inconvenient in my case. Not in one, not in two, but in anywhere.

R2: There are no toilets and most of the churches have steps, stairs, ramps and they are very steep. (…) no one thought about those who are severely disabled, who can’t manage on their own and even when they bring another person to help, to push the wheelchair up those stairs is a big feat.

(persons with disabilities)

People experiencing disability often exhibit low self-esteem and little confidence in their abilities. The marginalization of people experiencing disability does not happen in the environment: attitudes towards self-discrimination are equally common.

“I remember being a lector once. I was incredibly stressed, I wasn’t sure at the time that I could manage. I was afraid that people would look at my appearance, and no one would listen. That they would treat me like a child.”

(person with a disability)

“I don’t know if there’s anything more I can do for God. After all, I don’t go to the church. I pray at home sometimes, but how can I go to church? Would be nice should the priest show interest in me, too.”

(person with a disability)

R: Do you belong to any church community?

R1: No, I am in a wheelchair.

(person with a disability)

4.5. Carers of People with Disabilities

Families and carers emphasize the advantages of the community engagement of people with disabilities. The experience of being in a group, singing together, touching, or simply being in a larger congregation is conducive to positive emotional experiences, which in turn result in enhanced wellbeing and greater stability. Community and interaction with others give a sense of belonging, understanding, and support. They also provide answers to life’s most problematic questions: about the meaning of suffering and death (Janocha 2002, pp. 284–85). Irrespective of the above, the carers pinpointed diverse obstacles that hindered or prevented participation and presence in the Church.

“On Sundays, I usually don’t have the energy to go to church with my son. Dressing him, washing him, driving around and then the stress of disturbing someone—it’s discouraging. I want to relax on Sunday.”

(carer)

“She really reacts wonderfully at Mass, but these reactions of hers are known only to us. The others look at us crookedly. I know we are in the way. So we prefer to stay at home.”

(carer)

“We never really felt wanted. Neither the priest, nor other people show any interest in whether we have means to get to the church, or if we need help with anything. Maybe they don’t know how to ask, I am not sure. But we feel invisible.”

(carer)

“No, nobody offered help. And who would help me? I take care of my son. I mean, with my husband together. Sometimes we take turns.”

(carer)

Each type of disability affects the way the person perceives God and the world, so naturally, it also influences the course of catechization. All dysfunctions affect the human cognitive sphere in its particular dimensions. (Lipiec 2015, pp. 160–61).

The levels of disability also matter. Different life stages give rise to new situations, problems, and difficulties. The meaning of life, suffering, and one’s own condition are understood differently. Different questions and needs arise, and different solutions are sought. Certainly, the catalog of barriers is inexhaustible, but it is a Christian duty to listen to the voice of those who are next to us. Disability also affects learning about the Church as a community of believers. Difficulties may relate especially to seeing it as a fraternal community based on Christian love, empathy, and acceptance. Confirmation of the need for efforts towards inclusion can be found in the research of Poston and Turnbull (2004), which shows a high correlation between support from the Church community and the quality of life of a person with a disability and their family.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

The analysis of the responses from the persons with disabilities and their carers collected in our study enable the identification of the following main barriers:

• Infrastructural—resulting from the problems of technical access to facilities, materials, or pastoral services;
• Personal—related to malfunctions of the senses, organs, emotions, psyche, self-acceptance, and understanding of one’s own abilities;
• Organizational:
  • Family-related—resulting from religiosity in the family environment, related to the attitudes of parents and loved ones, support received, acceptance, and commitment;
  • Extra-familial—resulting from the religiosity in the extra-familial environment, related to the attitude of the priest, their education for work with people with disabilities, and the attitudes displayed by other members of the Church community.

People experiencing diverse disabilities often have a sensitive psychological and personal constitution, and exposure to stimuli which are acceptable for the non-disabled can evoke serious stress levels and discomfort in people with disabilities. Persons without disabilities may have an impression that persons with disabilities act illogically, overreacting to circumstances since the non-disabled do not define these stimuli in terms of stress triggers. What is more, people with disabilities often imagine their potential reaction in terms of failure, and juxtapose it with the presumed reaction of others. Finally, “disability is perceived as a judgment, and the person who experiences it is socially stigmatized, confirming their belief in otherness and their own weakness” (Pomarańska 2021, p. 41). This mechanism leads to a spiral of stress and passivity, which consequently leads to exclusion. Personal and non-personal barriers often overlap.

The topical question that arises in this context is whether the Church is authentically a “welcoming home” (see Ault et al. 2023, pp. 138–59) for those who need more, who are vulnerable and yet still represent the beauty and diversity of the Church community.

Without a doubt, the catalog of barriers experienced by people with disabilities (see McMahon-Panther and Bornman 2023, pp. 39–85) has not been exhaustively discussed in this study, while the types and categories may differ among communities. Nonetheless, the outline presented here can certainly inspire readers’ reflection. It can be a resource for all those for whom the Church is more than a place: a community of every being called to life and invited to one Eucharistic table. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the responsibility for the presence of persons with disabilities and their families in the Church rests on three parties—persons with disabilities, priests, and the other members of the community (see O’Hanlon 2013; Carter 2023; Zielińska-Król 2024). It is this triad that underlies the idea of an active Church.