The Inquisition – the real Inquisition, not the Monty Python version – was a dark time in this planet’s history. People were questioned and threatened with death, usually by members of the clergy (claiming to be acting in the name of God) assisted by local governmental officials, if they did not tell their inquisitors what they wanted to hear. Because these proceedings were conducted in secret, however, an accurate account of what was said and what kind of threats caused it to be said was rarely available.
Today we reverse the process and offer our own mini-“inquisition” of a member of the clergy: Fr. Carl Morello. But unlike the original Inquisition, we don’t claim to be acting in God’s name, since Fr. Carl and the Park Ridge Ministerial Assoc. seem to have beaten us to that endorsement. And also unlike the original, we are conducting this one in public with no threats or intimidation.
We just want to hear Fr. Carl's answers to the questions his own parishioners, and also a lot of non-parishioner residents of Park Ridge, have been asking about how St. Paul of the Cross school became the new PADS homeless shelter site.
Let’s start with this baker’s dozen, Father:
1. When did you first hear any mention of a PADS shelter being set up in Park Ridge?
2. When did you first become involved in the planning of a PADS shelter here?
3. What specifically did you do to inform yourself about PADS and its overnight shelters?
4. Did you ever visit a PADS shelter; and, if so, how many and where?
5. Why didn’t you tell your parishioners about PADS when planning first began?
6. With whom did you consult before committing to support a PADS shelter in Park Ridge?
7. What alternatives to a PADS shelter have you personally explored?
8. How many homeless people have you let stay in the St. Paul rectory in the past two years?
9. Why don’t you consider rectory stays a viable alternative to a PADS homeless warehouse?
10. With whom did you consult before committing to host the PADS shelter at St. Paul?
11. Why did you demand secrecy from your school board members about the St. Paul PADS?
12. Who asked Atty. Jack Owens to represent you, St. Paul or the Archdiocese re PADS?
13. Are you personally guaranteeing the safety of the St. Paul schoolchildren?
Fr. Carl, feel free to post your answers as a comment to this site. We promise to print them, in their entirety.
June 24, 2008
A Kinder, Gentler "Inquisition"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
I think the only response you are going to get is the sound of CRICKETS...
I would add to #4 “What did you do to inform yourself” specifically, what financial analysis did you perform since St. Paul has told me directly that they have no access to PADS financial statements, annual report or other disclosure. Ie what we in my business call “fiduciary irresponsibility”.
Who said "It's not so much the crime as the cover-up?"
But I guess if you're taking orders from God (e.g., Fr. Carl), you don't need to consult with anybody other than those who also are taking orders from God (e.g., the PRMA). Different conduct and different magnitude, I'm aware, but isn't that the theory Islamic extremists use to justify their jihad operations?
This is just another instance of somebody saying "I know what's best for everybody" and then acting on it while telling anybody who disagrees "Too bad, we're doing it." We get that from the City and now we're getting it from the churches.
ENOUGH!
All interesting questions that deserve answers, but is there any answer to any of the questions that is going to change anyone's current position about anything about PADS.
Me thinks not!
Why should Father Morello have to answer any of these questions?
Maybe he doesn't "have to" but it would sure be the decent thing to do if he answered some, if not all, of them.
If your point is that as the Pastor (at a Catholic church) so he doesn't have to necessarily answer questions posed by the congregation you are probably right. But let's see how far that gets him with the school families and parishioners who are opposed to PADS at SPC.
FR. Morello does not have to answer any questions; he will just have coffee with Howard instead . . .
I think what Anderson is saying, and what I have been saying for awhile now, is that Churches in general and certainly the Catholic Church does not ask for a show of hands related to what the leaders believe their mission to be (my opinion as a non-catholic and non church goer),
If they were driven by back lash from parishoners, this thing would be dead by now. They may have completely mishandled this thing but I think they are smart enough to know they were going to face serious objections from people in the community.
I think the answers to the questions would certainly be interesting to hear. However, we could all sit in a room and get the complete answer to these questions and two things would not change. One, the objections of many two a PADS site. Two, PRMA's committment to go forward with a PADS site.
If the porpose of the list of questions was to point out potential hypocricy in the church, well, we could spend all day doing that.
I do find it ironic that people are moved to withhold money and or pull there kids over this issue and yet were not so moved by other issues they may not have agreed with over the years.
Wondering's comments are sage.
Neither Father Morello nor the church has to answer any of these questions. The main point here is that when a church is engaged in the business of being a church (i.e. ministries including food drives, clothing drives, caring for the poor, tired or weary, etc), they are exempt from government regulation. That is the cornerstone of separation of church and state: the church cannot interfere with the government, but neither can the government interfere with the church when it is properly conducting its ministry. It cuts both ways, and is well recognized by the law (as the City Counsil well recognizes).
Sheltering the needy is clearly within the scope of a church's ministry, so the need for a permit is highly questionable. If the church were to deviate and charge for the housing, then that would make it a commercial venture, thus triggering the city's right to regulate commerce. Otherwise, the city will face a tough battle trying to fight the full power of the catholic church through the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The Archdiocese (headed by Cardinal George, who answers directly to the Vatican, run by the Pope) is a considerably more formidable opponent than the person who filed the Summit Square lawsuit. The Archdiocese is not likely to let a small town like Park Ridge try to regulate church activities without a fight, and such a fight would likely cost more money than the City or its citizens would want to spend in a likely losing battle in federal court for all to see.
As for the feelings of the parish, the 12 or so "vocal minority" persons who presented the cookie-cutter anti-PADS rhetoric at the city council meeting are in the minority - many more than 12 persons agree with Father Carl that sheltering those in need is part of being a good Christian and a good person, even if it is in our own back yard. We are all lucky to have what we have, and good fortune is no reason to set a bad example for our children by turning our back on others.
With the high rate of foreclosures, it is likely that many people in Park Ridge are one paycheck from being homeless themselves (including the vocal minority 12 persons), and are not that far away from being in the same situation as those they malign. That the 12 people (including the board member) have less than favorable reputations in the school and church only underscores the fact that Father Morello and the remainder of the parish are making the right call to do good things for people less fortunate, and not cave to a selfish disgruntled few who feel that they are too good to have to share our good luck with people less fortunate then them.
The silent majority does not need to be vocal because we agree with our Pastor. And even if we do not agree with him on the PADs issue, it is his call as our Pastor, and we are free to leave if we do not like it. Nonetheless, we do agree that a permit is unnecessary because we agree that the government cannot regulate the ministry of the church in this instance.
Part of being a pastor is making the tough calls, which Father Morello has done in this case. Father Morello is doing his job as a leader, and doing it well.
I understand that this a blog and you are not obligated to present balanced views. Hopefully, you will choose to post this entry un-edited so that all points of view are fairly represented. If not, that's OK - at least we will then know your standards.
PRU --- you made my day with The Inquisition parallels!
Also some uncanny similarities to The Reformation movement:
1. Shelter information on the Internet is like the use of the new printing press to make information available.
2. PRU’s list of questions reminds me The Ninety-Five Theses that was nailed to the church door.
3. The church is being seduced by HUD federal grant dollars – indulgences.
But inconsistent to Reformation is PRMA Lutherans and Presbyterians supporting the project.
"Because the soul has such deep roots in personal and social life and its values run so contrary to modern concerns, caring for the soul may well turn out to be a radical act, a challenge to accepted norms."
To Parishioner and Resident@ 9:27
I'd have to dissagree with you statement in part with regards to the separation of Church and gov. Here's why...
When a Church wants to fulfill a ministry , it may certainly do so without interference, however, when that "ministry" involves a negative impact on the community and assistnce from the city i.e. our police or ambulance sevices and the program with whom they partner with to help run the "ministry", will request funding from the city i.e (our tax money) then they must conceed to city process and rgulations.
To: Park Ridge Resident and other like minded people
You are very right. Fr. Carl can do whatever he wants. But he has to live with the consequences and, by extension, so do all other SPC parishioners and school families.
You will get many to debate you as to whether this is a church / state issue. Or whether the Archdiocese should / will get involved. To me and many others that is all beside the point.
The point is what Fr. Carl has done is drive a wedge through the parish and school communities. He did the same thing they did at St. Mary’s when they announced, with no conversation/dialog/input from their neighbors, that they were doing the PADS there. The neighbors had a problem and got very vocal.
What a shock... the exact same thing happened at SPC. Carl made his announcement two days before school let out and then left town. One would have to have been oblivious to what happened at St. Mary’s not to have been able to predict the reaction at SPC.
And, BTW, there is not a 12 person / family “minority” upset over the developments at SPC. The school families involved in the group opposed to the PADS at SPC numbers over 50 right now and that doesn’t include many who are “afraid” to come out against the PADS and who sit on the sidelines hoping the those willing to be more vocal will succeed. Even if the number were just 50, I think that’s more than 10% o the school families.
So, you may be right, the Catholic church is not a democracy, but any Pastor worth his weight has to know that you can’t succeed very well if you piss off 10 to 15% of your constituency... which is exactly what Fr. Carl is doing.
So the old adage about making your bed and having to sleep in it holds true here. Fr. Carl made this decision... it is his decision (not “the” decision as he said at mass on Sunday)... and he has to live with it. He said in a meeting with a number of the school families: “I didn’t ask for this”, but he did. And he is getting exactly what he asked for.
Like many in the SPC school and church community I wonder why he is spending all the years of goodwill he has built up on this issue. And more importantly, like many, I hope he isn’t doing irreparable damage to the school and church.
To Park Ridge Resident/St. Paul Parishioner:
I'm not an attorney, but I think that your legal analysis is naive.
Separation of church and state does not mean that religious organizations are exempt from the laws that govern everyone. Let's use a ludicrous example - churches are not allowed to perform human sacrifice, even if they say that it is part of their religious mission. The law against murder is still in effect and would be enforced against any religious organization that tried to claim an exemption. I believe that the same holds true for our zoning laws.
I have been told that the Circuit Court already ruled on a very similar case in the NW suburbs of Chicago. This ruling said that religious organizations have to follow the same laws zoning as everyone, so the Catholic Church in Chicago has already lost one battle on this issue.
As I said, I'm not an attorney. Are there any constitutional law scholars out there who would like to educate the rest of us? Does anyone know the details of the Circuit Court decision? Can someone provide some additional legal facts?
Park Ridge Resident/St. Paul Parishioner (& Fr. Carl Apologist):
I am a thinking Catholic, and it seems to me that your blind embrace of anything that Fr. Carl or "the Church" does as being part of its "ministry" makes you sound a lot like what came to be known in the aftermath of WWII as "good Germans": "Der Furhrer uber alles."
As a thinking Catholic I would rather see the City use my taxes to fight this arrogant and ethically repugnant attempt at tyranny by Fr. Carl, St. Paul, the PRMA, PADS and the Archdiocese, than to have the City roll over and play dead for what looks increasingly like a bunch of cross-wearing bullies or, at best, spoiled brats.
If those "Christians" want to wage their own kind of "jihad" with our city government and its residents over a secular issue like opening a non-religious PADS shelter controlled by a non-religious corporation that gets a big chunk of its money from the non-religious federal and state governments, let that be on their heads.
And as a thinking Catholic who recognizes that many Park Ridge residents may be starting to suffer from the economy and be a mortage payment or two away from homelessness themselves, I would much prefer to see all of the time, money and effort being wasted on a PADS shelter for non-Park Ridge residents directed toward helping our own people. Charity does begin at home.
As a thinking Catholic I also question your "Christian" charity when you brand those St. Paul parishioners who oppose Fr. Carl's conduct as having "less than favorable reputations in the school and church." That's not surprising, however: Cowards usually resent the courageous. And because I personally know a couple of those people, I also know that they are neither "selfish" nor "disgruntled" but are exceedingly generous with their time and their money.
As a thinking Catholic I know that there is no way to measure a "silent majority." If you really thought a majority of St. Paul parishioners supported Fr. Carl in this matter, you would encourage a vote to prove that support and silence his critics. That's what a courageous person does, while cowards are afraid to be proved wrong: they just declare victory and then hide.
Finally, as a thinking Catholic I abhor the idea of "love it or leave it" when it comes to my country, my Church, my community or my family. Thirty-five years ago "love it or leave it" was advocated by somebody else who claimed to have the support of a "silent majority" - until he got his comeuppance from a thing called "Watergate."
I prefer "change it or lose it" - an attitude which was expressed by many of those thinking Catholics who were the targets of slings and arrows by many in the Catholic hierarchy before finally gaining enough public support to hold that hierarchy accountable for decades of child molestation and abuse, and the cover-ups that went along with it. From what has been reported, some of the more twisted of those perpetrators (and their apologists) may have considered that a kind of "ministry."
Amen Hover and anonymous 6/25 10:07
I would also like to hear the opinion of someone in authority on the separation of church and state. The statement made by Park Ridge Resident/SPC member seems asinine. If there this kind of separation of church and state then who decides what is “properly conducting its ministry”. My ludicrous example would be the 911 attacks – couldn’t one argue that each one of those hijackers was doing “his God’s” work by flying those planes into the buildings. Clearly a super ludicrous example but if a religion is above the law in service of “its ministry” then where would it stop. Of course there is the extremely ludicrous example of priests molesting children and covering it up. Was that in the name of serving “its ministry”???
The more important point to me, is what about those of us who don’t believe. Doesn’t the constitution and Government protect us? Isn’t THAT the basis of the separation of church and state? Why do people like Park Ridge Resident/SPC member feel that it’s OK to force their beliefs on those who don’t want to do the Christian thing? Park Ridge Resident/SPC member, if you want to do the Christian thing then go serve soup in a soup kitchen, volunteer at a PADS shelter I am sure there are many ways you can be more Christian just do it somewhere other than my town.
If I wanted to live close to a homeless shelter then I wouldn’t have left Chicago for the suburbs. Which brings me to another point, many people like to use the phrase we are fortunate or lucky to live in Park Ridge. I speak for myself, my friends and I am sure many others when I say that we aren’t lucky or fortunate, we worked our asses off to afford to live in a community like Park Ridge. It pisses me off when people say how lucky I am to have such a nice house. I worked a 50+ hour a week job and spent every other waking hour working on my house. Am I lucky??? Lucky is winning the lottery. Fortunate is being born into money. Surly there are lucky and fortunate residents in Park Ridge but in my mind the majority of the residents have worked their asses off.
The last point I would like to make is to those sorry souls who are being foreclosed on. Surely some of them hit a string of bad luck but in my opinion, many, if not a majority of the people being foreclosed on deserve what they are getting. I know of many people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, took out home equity loans so they could by a new home theater system, go on a European AND pay off their credit cards. Now that their house is worth less than what they owe their screwed.
My parents taught me not to spend money that I didn’t have. They taught me to have money in the bank in case of emergencies. They taught me to take a job based on the stability of the company not on how much they pay. They taught me the concept of buyer beware so I have a conventional mortgage that I can afford as opposed to the interest only ARM that the bank offered me as a way of being able to buy “more house”. If I bought the interest only ARM would it have been the banks fault or mine if they foreclosed – I think it would have been my fault but I am sure many people think the other way.
Seems that we live in a world of immediate gratifications and now those people who must have it NOW are paying the price. When truly poor people buy frivolous things they can’t afford people scoff and say that their idiots and have no financial responsibility. When middle class America buys frivolous stuff that they can’t afford we coined it the mortgage crisis..Sorry but if you lived within your means you wouldn’t need a Park Ridge PADS shelter. And sorry but I don’t want vagrants from other communities coming to Park Ridge because a few people want to be more Christian.
It's the same out south with MSW
and Fr. Jerry G.
To conclude - never is the catholic church suppose to be a place of disgrace and downing the public.
It's suppose to listen to the people.
Thank you.
To: park ridge resident/st. paul parishioner –June 24, 9:27 PM
I am also a Park Ridge resident and St. Paul of the Cross parishioner. And I must take issue with your statement “that the government cannot regulate the ministry of the church” as SPC will be partnering with the Federal Government by using faith-based funding, whether it receives it directly or through the program administrator, Journeys from PADS to HOPE, INC, they will no longer be exempt from government regulation.
Here are a few does & don’ts from www.whitehouse.gov Guidance for Partnering with the Fed Gov. “The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support “inherently religious activities. Basically, it means you cannot use any part of a direct federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive government funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer. Such organizations should also take careful account for their use of all government money.” Additional regulations include: shelter guests can only pray voluntarily, staff/volunteers cannot share their personal faith unless asked. No religious materials or faith-filled materials can be displayed in shelter.
How can this be a faith driven ministry –sounds like a sell-out for federal cash
To Resident/parishioner...you are wrong. This is not a church/state issue. Any doubt has been recently resolved by Judge Andersen and Judge Shadur of the federal court in Chicago.
On the issue of being fortunate to live in Park Ridge as if that creates some social duty to cater to the less fortunate, I commend to you the novel, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand which I finally completed. It's long, very long. But the message is clear, people who work and strive to better themselves have no duty to help those who won't.
To 6/25 8:42am - If the City feels that a church activity unduly burdens the public, then they have the right to take the church to court. Of course, they would have to present evidence stronger then the "indirect burden" you cite.
To 6/25 9:44pm - Looking forward to hearing you express your views at the SPC meeting on July 1 (an email went out among SPC parents - are you an SPC parent?). As stated before, the issue with the City is not whether or not we want PADS, that is SPC issue. The City matter is the church and state issue, which will be decided by the courts in the resulting lawsuit.
To 6/25 10:07am: You lost all your credibility when you admitted you were not an attorney and then tried to critique the legal analysis of one who is an attorney (likely with more federal court experience than certain others on this site). There is more than one side to a legal issue, which is why judges make the decisions on the law (juries decide only questions of fact). Moreover, the zoning issue is a red herring. Sheltering the homeless is a use within the permitted scope of a church, so the first rebuttal to the imposition of a zoning requirement would be to assert that there are no new or special uses (i.e. commercial ventures, etc.). Zoning is not an issue here. Christie's Carousel needed a permit because their use of the Church property was in connection with a commercial venture. If it had been a church program (like the many Vacation Bible Schools that go on during the summer), no permit would have been necessary. By your own naive analysis, you would have zoning permits required for spaghetti dinners and Teen Center Concerts. Most respectfully, feel free to express your opinoins, but stick to what you know and leave the legal analysis to the professionals.
To 6/25 hoover 12:25 - Wow, comparing SPC with the Nazis, the Watergate felons, and terrorists by accusing them of waging "jihads." You sound more like an "Angry Catholic" rather than a "Thinking Catholic." You sound like you have some real anger issues with SPC. If you are in fact a SPC parishioner, you should switch parishes. Someone who feels the way you do deserves a parish that can serve you better. Our Lady of Ransom, St. Juliana's and Mary Seat are nearby. Or if those parishes are not at the class level you desire, perhaps you can move farther out from the city - good luck with the move. Or if Catholicism is not for you, perhaps you can find a religion that is more democratic than catholicism - you know, where you can choose who to be nice to and when? Feel free to share the information with friends of yours who feel the same way. Don't worry about us, we and our children will get along without you while living here with the riff raff. There once was a time when Park Ridge was not so affluent.
To 6/25 2:43 - As you have readily admitted, comparing sheltering the homeless to molesting children and flying planes into buildings is truly ludicrous. Think before you type. Do you even think there is a reasonable correlation between caring for your fellow human beings and molesting children or flying planes into buildings? If you were a lawyer, you'd be laughed out of court. So it is obvious you are not a lawyer. Leave the analogies to the pros. That's nice that you left Chicago for the suburbs to get away from homeless people. But you picked the wrong community. Park Ridge has traditionally been a community with a heart - look at the good our churches, service clubs, and community organizations and leaders have done over the years. Look at the wonderful leaders we have been fortunate to have. If you were looking for a place that turned its back on others when they invade our back yard, you should have gone to someplace further out, or some place peopled with those less charitable than the average Park Ridge resident. We all have worked hard to get here. The difference between people like you and most other people from Park Ridge is that we love all thing about Park Ridge; not just the property values and teardown houses. That's nice that you manage your money well, kudos to you and your parents. Perhaps it is time for you to move out of Park Ridge to get away from the homeless and those you perceive as financially irresponsible. Park Ridge has many realtors as well - their numbers are in the book.
To 6/25 3:02 - The Catholic Church is not democratic. You are confusing church with the state. The State has a pretty tough time listening as well. But that's because somewhere along the line, the people do not agree, or the greater good is at stake, so the leader has to make a judgment call. Like what has happened here. Whether you like the decision or not, you have to admit that he made the call and was decisive about it. Who wants to put a waffler/flip-flopper in charge?
To 6/25 5:41pm - Nice try at legal analysis, but you are relying on non-binding (and non-authoritative authorities. If you are going to quote, you should quote cases, and do so accurately. Whitehouse.gov is not the source to cite in support of your argument. That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Well, more like a feather duster. But your point is well taken. It seems that what you are saying that there might be more here than meets the eye, and the best way to find out is to ask these questions at the July 1 meeting at SPC (if you are an SPC parent, someone probably told you about it).
In any event, PADS is a PRMA/SPC issue. If this all goes forward, the City then is left with the administrative decision of whether or not they will take steps to require a permit. And if they do, count on a lawsuit where the City will face an opponent way more formidable than the person who filed the Summit Square lawsuit or the kids who sued the police for having the nerve to use force to restrain them after they were shooting people's car windows with BB guns. Archdiocese of Chicago v. City of Park Ridge. That will be an interesting (and expensive) one to watch. You heard it here first.
To PRU: Thank you for running my entry.
To Dave: That's your own opinion and you are entitled to it. But as you should well know, there is mroe than one side to a legal issue (have you read the federal case where animal sacrifice by a "religion" was permitted by the court?) Other lawyers do not see a zoning issue here (likely including the attorneys for the Archdiocese).
The cases you cite contemplate bona fide zoning issues. Conversely, no bona fide zoning issue exists here - it is a red herring. This is no different than a Vacation Bible School, Church sponsored lock-in for teens, and bingo night. All, like sheltering and caring for those less fortunate, are within the scope of use for a church.
If you think that a permit is required, then by all means vote in favor of it and let the cards fall where they may. By all means, do anything you want as to the zoming issue.
But unless you are a parishioner of SPC, you should mind your own business and stay out of church ministries and matters. Religion and politics do not mix well. Believe it or not, there are some places where politics and your Ayn Rand philosophies are not welcomed.
Thank you PRU for your courtesy.
I am a parishioner of SPC, and I'm sick and tired of the pastor of my church playing politics while pretending its "rellgion" while his lackeys threaten a legal fight by the big bad Archdiocese - the same Archdiocese that looked the other way for years while its priests took indecent liberties with children. I'm sure the Archdiocese would have played the "separation of church and state card" in that mess, too, if it thought it could get away with it.
Resident/parishioner-
You did a pretty fair job of demeaning people because they are not lawyers. However, you tellingly failed to address the LOCAL federal court cases I have mentioned, cases for which there is no contrary LOCAL authority. Those cases establish that Park Ridge can require St. Paul's or any organization, religious or otherwise, to apply for a special use permit to operate a homeless shelter. Those decisions blow up this absurd argument going around that the separation of church and state somehow insulates the church from the City's involvement in this escapade. If you are a lawyer and you are still adhering to that fallacy, then you need a refresher course. If you are not a lawyer and are simply buying the bill of goods being sold to you, then I guess you get a pass for now.
If you are a lawyer, you know very well that a LOCAL federal court decision which specifically holds a municipality can require a special use permit in this situation is THE law unless and until an appellate court reverses that decision. That has not happened and won't for quite some time, if ever. That means the church will be defying the law if it goes forward with a shelter without going through the legal process. In such a situation, I would gladly take arms against anyone, including the Archdiocese, which dares to defy the law and force something upon our community, especially something this controversial and potential damaging to the community, without any public hearing.
A homeless shelter in town is my business, both as a representative of people who will be affected by such a facility and as a resident myself. This is not the church's decision; this will be the community's decision.
To June 25, 8:59 pm
From one park ridge resident/spc parishioner & parent to another:
Stop the “formidable opponent” saber rattling.
The Archdiocese of Chicago has seen better days. Parish finances are at an all time low, Sunday offerings are decreasing, there are reports of financial misconduct, they are hemorrhaging with payouts to sexual abuse victims, properties and schools are closing and being sold off North and South.
Your scare tactics are verbal terrorism.
Hey Fed Up!
I'm with you.
Sounds like many have already
crossed over from MSW to SP.
Where are the Knights of Columbus now. Its time to get your uniform dirty.
We fight for the people and the obligation it is the worship at the church of our choice - not theirs!
Tell me when Frimark and his bootlickers start marching with the knights....don't forget the arm bands!!!!!!!!boys.
I completely understand the "charity begins at home" argument. I understand that it does support my position of no PADS in PR. The problem is, I cannot say it with a strait face.
IF I would say "sorry United Way. I will not give you money unless you can prove to me my money will only go to PR causes", or IF I would say, " sorry various vetrans orgs, I will not be leaving the bags of cloths on my porch unless you can guarantee it goes to a PR vet" or Salvation Army, or UNICEF, or Special Olympics (etc) then I would be in a position to use that argument.
I can say charity begins at home but my own behavior does not match those words. A more accurate statement would be, charity begins at home, when it serves my purposes.
Alderman Dave:
I have not read the book you referenced but I will certainly will take a look at it. Maybe the book explains it, but my question for you is as follows.
Who determines, and how do we determine those who are not striving to better themselves and therefore are not worthy of our help?
As I have often, stated I would vote no on PADS but this is one of the issues I struggle with. Where does the person with mental health or addiction issues fit in? Is it fair for me to say that a person suffering from serious mental health issues is not striving to better themselves? In their current condition, are they even capable of striving to better themselves?
The same applies to addiction. One person might say this person clearly is not striving to better themsleves, and yet there are cases where, with help, a person makes it into recovery and leads a happy productive life.
I guess what you, or maybe rather the book, seem to be saying is we can feel OK about hot helping certain catagories of people because we have no duty to do it. The problem is that, in the wrong hands, most of the people that need help might fall into this catagory.
Related to PADS, I don't always feel "OK" about my position against PADS. I don't put all those who would attend into the "not striving to better themselves" catagory. I just cannot get over the risk issue.
To Parishioner and Resident@ 9:27
Pads journey to hope takes in alot of money from State and Federal funding, HUD, etc.. Pads journey to hope will appear before the Township and Park Ridge City Hall requesting funds to run this "Church based ministry" as soon as the doors open.
So Where is the separation between Church and State? In the end all of our tax dollars are paying for it. City Taxes, State Taxes, Federal Taxes and Township taxes.
Because the "PADS" organization dips into the tax funds you can't call it a "Church based ministry"
If the church wants to open a homeless shelter and call it a "Ministry" then keep it within the church, sponsored by the church, funded by the church, as most ministries are.
Hi 9:39. You make some good points. I differentiate between those suffering from mental illness and those involved in substance abuse. The latter type has generally caused his or her own problems, and it is not up to society to make those problems go away. It is up to the individuals to take responsibility for their own lives. However, my point is that neither type of individual is going to get the help they need at an overnight flophouse. PADS facilities are not designed to help these individuals address those problems; they are designed to house them. Other organizations and facilities exist to help those who want to help themselves. Some of those are right here in Park Ridge and Maine Township. They deserve our support. For those who cannot or do not want to help themselves, or even those who do, shuffling them from Des Plaines on Saturday to Park Ridge on Sunday to Palatine on Monday to Arlington Heights on Tuesday to Inverness on Wednesday back to a different church in Arlington Heights on Thursday to Wheeling on Friday back to Des Plaines on Saturday and returning to Park Ridge on Sunday is an absurd idea if what you want to do is help the person gain the stability necessary to deal with his or her problems.
9:27, you may be interested to learn that the most recent federal court decision I referred to above which upheld the City of Elgin's right to impose a special use permit requirement on a church attempting to operate a homeless shelter indentified PADS as a NON-religious entity.
Anonymous at 10:06 AM
You are right on target! And all that federal funding goes to PADS salaries, fundraising, and office expenses. There is a lot of overlap in homeless service in the Northwest suburbs, and that means more tax dollars are consumed by non-profit salaries, and less actually helps the homeless people. What a sin and waste or resources!
“HOMELESS” is a misleading term.
Park Ridge & our congregations are divided because we haven’t defined the term. PADS and PRMA are taking advantage of this misunderstanding. I can clarify who the PADS clients are, but why would you believe an anonymous blogger – many of you won’t believe the concerns of your own neighbors. Go to the facts people - use the Internet; learn the demographics of chronic homelessness. Be very careful of the impressions and terms used by PADS and PRMA they are marketing an image without revealing the reality of the clients. And why would they do that - there is money involved.
To PRR/SPCP & P at 6/25 - 8:59 PM
Why would the Archdiocese of Chicago go to bat for PADS a non-profit with no religious affiliation? They have The Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Anon June 26, 2008 8:45 AM:
When I contribute to United Way, Catholic Charities, etc., I know and accept than little or none of my contribution will be helping Park Ridege residents. But none of those tell me, as does PADS, that they are taking care of "my neighbors" or the "homeless who are already here" as if those homeless are Park Ridgians.
But for those who believe in the need for this PADS shelter at SPC, why stop at only one night a week? Shouldn't you be showing your Christian charity all 7 days a week. And why only at SPC? Why not at every member church of the PRMA?
As a Catholic I am disappointed in how this has all occurred. And I can't help but believe that this is far more about money for PADS, maybe with a kick-back to the PRMA members, than it is about actually helping the homeless.
Alderman:
Thanks much for the reply. Please forgive me for asking the same question in a different way but I really struggle with this! You say that there are organizations in PR "to help those who want to help themselves". Let's say there is homeless man in PR - a vetran who is fighting mental health and addiction issues. Where exactly does he fit in?
anon 1:06:
The point I was making was that even though I do not want a PADS shelter in PR, for me to use the "charity begins at home" argument" would be completely inconsistent with a bunch of my past behavior.
Your point seems to be that based on the way it is has been packaged it is ok for me to use the argument. I do not think that PADS behavior excuses me from at least attemption to be consistent in my arguments.
The reduction of funding for social welfare and change in policy in the late 70’s failed to provide for the treatment of many citizens with mental illness. Somewhere the policy favored individual rights, no matter how unstable, instead of their medical needs. These rights were strengthened by the misconception that newly developed drugs would allow otherwise unstable individuals to be better served by professional medical and social services in their local communities. But the government didn’t plan for the high cost of medications, or an inability to find services to help with the cost, or that the person needing treatment just didn’t want to take medication. Also, the local medical and professional social services never stepped up to help these needy folks.
A fine example, I think, is Advocate Lutheran General, one of the top teaching hospitals, has volunteered to do the laundry for PADS – and that is it. They are tax exempt, they use our city services, and they have all the resources the homeless folks desperately need. Laundry doesn’t cut it.
The unintentional homeless need more than volunteers, with two hours of training; they need the mental health professionals to take help out.
PADS will tell you that they have a few caseworkers, but I think they are college interns. PADS says that they offer services at the HOPE Center, but are only open from 9 -4, M - F. How are needy individuals, who we are told all have jobs, supposed to receive help in Palatine, carrying all their belongings, traveling on public transportation before the office closes at 4 pm.
2:42...No problem. I am learning along with you. I understand that the Maine Center specializes in helping people with the problems you mention. In fact, the City just received a nice letter from the Center thanking us for providing a monetary grant. Perhaps more public and private funding should go into assisting that organization instead of pursuing a flophouse which would only give a veteran a place to stay overnight without dealing with his core problem before he gets shipped off to another suburb to flop for that night. They are located at 819 Busse Highway in Park Ridge. The phone number is (847) 696-1570. I know Center of Concern also aids the homeless, but I am uncertain whether they deal with mental health and substance abuse issues.
Ah yes..........the drums along the Mohawk...or is it the Cumberland..
eitherway...Frimark and his gang of seven should be on the next boat - leaving.
Higher taxes, spending money like its growing on the many trees here, giving employment packages out like we have Fort Knox in the basement at 505, giving out parachutes with many different colors..the police are not happy, many citizens are not happy, neighbors fighting each other over alleys ..to pave or not to pave!!
What does this all add up to you say....a better and much thoughtout slate for the next election process.
We know the problems...
Lets fix it.
Thank you.
What really kind of frosts me is all the in depth responses and sheer number of comments when issues like PADS are posted, relative to the few comments posted for issues regarding our Mayor and the antics of his cronies. Please no statistics I am speaking relatively here. It seems to me that we all get outraged when our perceived property values or the perceived sanctity of our neighborhoods are in jeopardy but when our Mayor and his alder-puppets give away millions of our tax dollars we all do a “what you gunna do”.
Would the PADS issue be an issue if we had real leadership that was concerned with us the citizens and not just their friends? By the way, aren't the 8 extra condos just approved by zoning across from SPC? Think the friend of Frimark developer is concerned that he’ll have a difficult time selling condos with a homeless shelter across the street? What’s the chance the 8 extra condos are Frimarks way of keeping his developer friend happy and contributing to the re-elect Frimark fund? Just a crazy tangent that cane to me.
The scary thing, really one of many scary things Park Ridge Resident/SPC member stated was the fine leadership comment. This person really believes there is good leadership in this town and I fear they aren’t the only ones. What is it going to take to get the word out and get the jackasses out? Sure people who read this blog and the others understand what’s going on but what about the rest? by the way kudos to Alderman Dave for participating in this blog – we are some of your citizens and you are our voice. The others think this is a poison blog. The words of the citizens you’re serving are poison? We have to get these guys out or at least under control. They are going to give our town away by the time the elections roll around.
Having been a part of PADS in the past, I am familiar with all the general arguments and people's discomfort with the idea of PADS. Yet, in my experience, ther were very few problems at the site, the school children had no contact with the homeless people and the feared threats to the community never materialized.The implication of some that homeless people are homeless becasue they are lazy or shiftless is just silly. I was surprised at how many we had to wake up early because they were going to a job or school.
There are many comments on this blog that are clearly anti-Catholic merely for the sake of venting various miscomprehensions about the Church. Furthermore, anyone who knows Fr. Carl knows he is not the uninformed, arrogant cleric he is being protrayed to be.
Many communities, lower and higher in the economic spectrum than PR have PADS. Why not ask some people with real experience?
Lucky Guy~ Very well stated however I still have real concerns.
Arlington Height's PADS has had many problems. There was also the sexual attack on the young girl that happened. This really should all be about the children and their safety, it is a school. I don't beleive there is any way to know for sure if the kids walking to school in the morning will not encounter someone leaving unsupervised. My children do not attend SPC but I worry for the SPC kids. They should be the forefront of this decision. There has to be a better location.
I do not doubt that there are very good people using the PADS organization but what I worry about is the one who is not properly screened and should not be near children. I do not think any PADS should be run at a school. That's ridiculous and asking for trouble.
I am Catholic and have great respect for Father Carl but I do think the parish should decide on PADS together. After all, if we do not, this will continue to divide the parish.
I'm very upset about the whole thing. But what I'm most upset about is the way that Fr. Carl moved forward without a consensus from the parish--without regard for the safety of the children--during the summer, a time when so parishoners are unreachable. I was already not feeling good about the way that the Powers That Be have handled issues in the Catholic Church. This is another example that brings it home.I'm just sad--- and thinking about looking for a new Church, not Catholic. They've proved time and again
they just don't care to listen.
I am Catholic, I am a lawyer, I am an SPC parent and parishoner ...
THE CRUX OF THIS ISSUE IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN and, of course, good old fashioned SECULAR GREED.
[You'll get no anti-lawyer grist from me, we have 2 lawyers working their fannies off to make sure our kids remain safe; they are truly an example of god's work in action, doing it for the most noble of reasons- protecting those who cannot protect themselves, our kids.]
How much money flows to the PRMA, Carl Morello, Mayor Jackass et al for bringing this garbage to town? Lots - Let's see some hard numbers!
There is no sound reasoning to support a shelter in a school, you cannot sacrifice the well-being of over 700 kids for the benefit of a handful of adults even if there is big money at stake. Yes, life is hard, bad choices have consequences...
BUT
Our children SHOULD NOT be the ones who give up their security so a smattering of largely drug addicted, mentally ill criminals can get something for nothing. If we are hell bent on this ministry, fine, but keep it away from the kids.
Arguments about church and state, notions that good christians follow the shepherd, the idea that anyone who opposes the shelter at SPC is a greedy pig- it is all bull --
subjecting the children to imminent harm under the auspices of charity is TOTAL nonsense. The proposal is to put this shelter IN THE SCHOOL, not in the church...
The school was built for children, the children deserve and need to be protected from the homeless population. Leave all our kids out of it.
Carl Morello is human and made an EGREGIOUS error - whether out of pride or greed, he should fix it while he can before the place goes down the tubes and this is his legacy everlasting.
And speaking for myself, I am so disgusted by Carl's towing the party line of usual short shrift the Catholic church shows for its own children that I am ashamed to be a part of his congregation. I am ashamed I steered so wrong into this parish that doesn't value the sheltering of its own young. I am just about done being Catholic at all largely due to this issue. Angry? You bet. Justified? Totally.
Welcoming PADS into school space is a travesty of charity -- how about you start by looking out for your own that are too young to look out for themselves?
Anyone starting sidefires about good deeds, morals, the lord, being one step away from poverty, etc is willfullly diverting the focus from the main issue - again, the crux of the matter is THE KIDS.
PADS - get lost.
To the "I am Catholic and have great respect..."
I am [was?] Catholic and have ZERO respect for Fr. Carl. He has ruined a parish. He has ruined kids' school years next year. He has ruined many a family's summer. He has destroyed hithertofore harmonious relationships, friendships. Good to see his stripes, though. Good to know him for what he really is - a lowly, greedy sneak.
He screwed up royally - Someone on this blog said St Paul will go the way of MSW, except MSW might find itself revived as a parish and school due to mass exodus from SPC.
Who among you would send your kids to school in a fricking homeless shelter? If you really want to, go for it, decide it for yourself and go. But such a decision has no place being forced upon an entire school population.
Kids and parents will be leaving SPC in droves. Good.
If this shelter opens up, I do hope St Paul's enrollment goes down and they struggle [struggle more - the academics have already deteriorated majorly under the new principle -- she sucks]. Anyone dumb enough to welcome this shelter garbage into the sanctuary of a children's safe place -there are so few left!- gets what they deserve.
Grow a spine, then grow a brain, then think for yourself. Helping a few degenerates and throwing your own kids under the bus in the process is not a ticket to redemption.
Priest collar ot not, Fr. Carl was so calculating and sneaky and awful about the way he has released information, how he did it, when he did it... this PADS discussion has been ongoing for 2 years. Hence his 'emergency extension' this year that prevented him from heading to Winnetka - maybe he could take the shelter with him there? TWO years of discussion and he tells everyone now, when he hightails it out of the USA and leaves NO ONE enough time to gather info, interview at other schools, etc?
After parent pressure, he broke down and scheduled meetings ....bracketing a weekend where families have planned way in advance to leave town for the 4th of July. He will not respond with concrete answers to any questions. He allows the director of PADS to get away with doubletalk and evading questions. He bullies and belittles anyone who disagrees, hurls insults like 'fear monger' and 'unchristian'. How is it that looking out for the smallest, lierally least among us [KIDS] is fear mongering and unchristian? His conduct is reprehensible and nothing short of tyrannical. Loathesome does not put too fine a point on it.
The papers are full of sh*t - it's not 12 people who 'have concerns.' It's the majority of the school parent population that is PISSED that this PADS decision a.) is even up for consideration, it's so outside the bounds of common sense, and b.) was handled in such a despicable manner.
PLEASE take a stand for your OWN children.
The fact that AFTER the sex abuse scandals, people would still be willing to put kids in a place secondary to what 'the church' says and blindly accept what a priest tells them is ridiculous, so disturbing. Didn't anyone learn anything about how much the clergy will lie and manipulate to protect its own interests??
Fr Carl is not bothering to think of protecting your kids - don't you think at least you ought to do it? Don't your kids deserve more devotion from you than that lowly, greedy sneak who masquerades as a leader?
ANYONE who is the slightest bit concerned really needs to get on it - Town Hall meeting Tues night at 7, get there early, sign in, and pipe up.
Salvation is not in Fr Carl's hands, but your kids' innocence, health and safety is in yours.
DO SOMETHING!
I would not move from SP until Fr. Carl has come clean on the approach of the P.A.D.S. issue.
They are already practicing how to be a good little commie down the block at MSW - so hang in there. At least for now and should we have issues with this - then you'll know what to do.
And you thought the Knights of Columbus would come to our rescue!
I am disappointed in this whole issue too.
Thank you.
We should focus our efforts where they are needed in Park Ridge, such as the food pantry. There are people losing their jobs and finding lower paying jobs. Gas is costing more and food is really a necessity. Why truck in extra homeless people when they exist in a different capacity in PR?
We all see that it's a noble idea to offer St. Paul as a place for Pads. I've volunteered, only once, and everyone was very nice and peaceful. But, there will be a different group of people, personalities, and problems.
If they don't have to leave until 6:30a.m. they are going to overlap with school children. There is band, edp, math, and other programs that start right after 7am.
Dude named Jesus said, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers so you do unto me."
To anonymous at 6/30 12:36 AM:
Your comments are to the point, thank-you for having the courage to share them. I am a SPC parent/parishioner and have noticed that many that support the shelter are empty nesters, their children grew up in this community before a shelter and they are selfishly denying our children the same safety. If we don’t speak-up we are collaborating simply by doing nothing.
Anonymous 6/30/08 @ 3:46 p.m.-
That "dude named Jesus" didn't set up a homeless shelter over at the temple, either. If you want to be like that "dude named Jesus," take a homeless person into your home on Sunday nights. And that goes for the rest of you holier than thous, including Fr. Carl and the rest of the PRMA.
Fred - Jesus preached to help those in need regardless of boundaries. Your "Temple" description sounds like something he wouldn't have favored. It's very interesting to see the venom come out of people instead of any type of real discussion. Oops, does that make me "holier than thou"? So many people claiming to be Christians have no idea what that actually means, but that's nothing new. Some of the greatest evil ever committed has been done in the name of religion. I think Jesus might have torn a temple down for the hypocrisy that it fostered. Perhaps Fred, you are the one who needs to shelter the homeless. It might just educate you a little, or at least provide a little empathy and insight. Right now you sound like someone filled with hatred.
anon 3:02:
You seem frustrated and/or confused by a lack or "real discussion". With all due respect may I help you to understand why.
Based on many of the posts here people seem to forget that not everyone in the world, the country, the state or the city of Park Ridge is a practicing Christian. It is difficult to have "real discussions" when the reference points are so different.
Second, based on the posts here and on other sites, it is clear that there is not even any concensus among a single religion (Catholic) of the Christian faith related to this issue - let alone multiple religions.
In other words your comment about "Jesus preaching.........." while making perfect sense to you is going to make some people scratch their heads and others disagree with you. You will say they are wrong and so on......get the point???
You mix that in with a huge amount of anger, fear and lack of an open minds on BOTH sides and is it a wonder that a "real discussion" is difficult?
Lastly, just becuase you find the discussion frustrating (as do I at times) does not mean there is no value in it. I think that the discussion on this site and others has made some people think about their families, church, community and faith in a way they have not in a long time.
It don't get no better then that!!!
1 issue that seems to be ignored and 1 or 2 people pointed this out at the meeting last night is the fact that they wanna bring in a bunch of homeless epople from elsewhere instead of helping them out where they come from and probably allow them to remain after the shelter closes.
I just read elsewhere that out in Wheaton which along with Glen Ellyn also has a homesless shelter and 1 person said that there was none there until they opened the shelter.
At last night's council meeting one said there are some homeless around town. but the possibility of them brining in more from elsewhere is what will be the real problem.
Why do they want to do that for?
It was also said there are many places in the city that have unsued beds.
If the people at SPC and it's staff and members wanna help those unfortunate they need to go to those places or send in donations or whatever to help them.
As for any homeless around here then certainly we must help them and if need be send them to another place that might be able to help them get on their feet again especially if they're willing to help themselves.
It's good that these organizations wanna help those who are down and out and certainly not all homeless people are bad but to spread them around and bring them in unsupervised in assinine.
Oh another thing I forgot to ask is why wasn't the press at the meeting and why was Mayor Firmark not hosting the meeting?
Mike:
How can you say the issue has been ignored? The issue has been discussed on this an other boards to the point where the horse is dead and beaten. The problem is that the answer is one that will not satisfy you - but hey that is life.
As I have often stated, I would vote no if there was a vote on PADS but how about some consistency in the argument. We have a variety of organizations in PR today who do GREAT work for people in need. I have read many people who site them as examples of organizations we should support instead of PADS. I agree all these organizations are very worth of support from the community but are you blind or do just choose to see what you want to see?
We have a youth center in PR that does great work but that, on occasion, has incidents I read about in the paper. Are all those youth who receive aid from this fine organization from PR? Are all those served by the Main center (another fine organization) only from PR? Wings? Not to mention other organizations that I, and I am sure many others from PR, support like United Way or Salvation Army or Vetrans Charities where we don't even know where the funds are going. So it is OK for all these organizations to do this but if it happens with PADS it is wrong.
The answer is simply this. PR is not an island. We are boardered by multiple communities. I can walk to Edison Park (Chicago) in 15 min. I can take the Blue line and or Metra and be in the loop in under 30 min. If a shelter opens in PR there will be people who were not born here and or whose last known address was not in PR who will receive assistance. That is the reality of opening a shelter. How can they ever address that to the satisfaction of those of us who have issues with a PADS site in PR?? What exactly do you want them to say? Is it was it is. If a shelter opens in PR they will also service some homeless from outside PR, just like those organizations mentioned above.
Obviously, anyone is free to use any argument they want to either for or against PADS. As for me, if I were to push the "charity begins at home" argument I would be the biggest hypocite to walk the earth.
Whatever.
As I see it - we have the following:
- PADS Site proposed.
- A church being used as a fleabag
hotel.
- Strong potential for transfer of
bugs....whatever.
- Father Carl walking out of a city
hall mtg.
- City fathers wanting a special
permit for the PADS site.
- Folks at the school ( SP) very
upset with all of this being
put in place.
Bottom line....they all need to form a workshop and put this all together or let it go!!!
Thank you!!!
Fr. Morello doesn't have to answer questions from his congregation and school families because, as has been pointed out, his church and school aren't a democracy.
I would like to point out though that Fr. Morello's church and school exist within a democracy and that means that the rest of us who aren't members of his congregation and school have the right to demand that Fr. Morello and the rest of the PRMA answer our questions about the plans they have for a PADS shelter that will have an effect on the whole community.
Welcome to democracy, Fr. Morello.
I think Morello may have given up on the issue of PADS.
Anon@7:00PM --
What makes you think that?
It was a crazy thought. I think Morello should drop the issue. Unless he plans on supervising these people, which I doubt.
Anon@11:09 --
From that it sounds more like you think the PADS shelter organization is giving up on operating in Park Ridge.
What other churches in town are going to want to host a PADS shelter?
Why don't you make an educated guess on that.
That would be none.
Is that an educated guess?
Blasphemy.
Thanks, we do our best.
Nice Pic.
It's exciting and wonderful to find a town like Park ridge, where the people can just come right out and admit, no, boast that they flat out hate the poor and needy. Most people are ashamed to show how horrid they are inside, but not the people of Park Ridge. Congratulations on your candor. I just hope your superior attitudes towards the less fortunate can spread worldwide, so that nobody ever helps anyone, ever again. Alderman Dave for President! He reads his first "long" book and figures out he has no obligations to anyone less fortunate than himself, as long as he judges himself superior to them. What a visionary - and exactly the type of leader you folks deserve. I read all your thoughtful, educated, self-satisfied comments and criticisms of the persons involved and noticed that there is almost no mention of the people your smug community might just be able to help - only backbiting and name calling. You are a hateful, pitiable, miserable bunch. I'm glad you all have to hang around together.
Anon@11:55 --
You have an odd obsession with this post. Is there a reason you keep coming back to this post to comment?
Post a Comment