St. Paul's to extend mission with PADS
Herald-Advocate 6/12/08
"Morello said most of the feedback he has received from St. Paul parishioners and parents has been supportive. There have also been opponents, he said, adding, "I will listen to them, but they won't alter my decision to go forward with this."
A dictator is as a dictator does, despite the slick offering of "a continuing spirit of partnership and cooperation" from the PRMA's report in today's newspaper.
June 12, 2008
Morelleon?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
I got a kick out of the PRMA "report" to the Herald-Advocate...
I knew the Harald-Advocate printed "anonymous" news stories, but I didn't know the Herald-Advocate printed "anonymous" letters...
...or did I somehow miss who signed the PRMA "report"...
Wicked pic today, PRU...
Thanks. We do our best.
Blasphemy.
Thanks. We do our best.
bean
Reads like it came straight from the pen of Rev. Dr. Stephen Larson, Lead Pastor of St. Luke's. Just my guess.
This whole PADS thing is more than troubling.
The Ministerial Associations actions have been cloaked in secrecy and has created alot of division in our community.
When church leaders preach from the pulpit in support of a secular agency they have crossed a line.
I am very disappointed in our religious leaders.
To Anonymous June 12, 2008 12:30 PM,
I don't really care who wrote it, other than for the interesting glimpse into what can best be described as the spinningly slimy political side in the author's character...
My first thought upon reading the piece was, "Looks like the PRMA has hired a public relations firm to start their marketing campaign..." But if you're familiar enough with Reverend Larson's writing to make such a guess, I'll take your word for it...
I just found it funny that the Herald-Advocate printed an "anonymous" letter...
The HA is generally a piece of crap. It / they will print an anonymous letter that is essentially propaganda in support of what has become one of the city’s most controversial issues in years but they will not print a balanced set of Letters to the Editor on the same subject matter.
This week in the HA we are treated to not only the PRMA’s unsigned propaganda but to Dick Barton’s pearls of wisdom (and his letter was in the PR Journal too). I don’t buy... no, scratch that, I am certain that the papers did not print letters / submissions from the other side opposed to the Park Ridge PADS shelter. How can anyone read either of the two publications and think they are getting ALL news, views and opinion? They cannot... but I guess that’s why Watchdog and PRU exist, as Paul Harvey might say, to tell “the rest of the story”.
There may been a time and place when the 4th Estate was more widely respected but that’s certainly not now or in Park Ridge. It’s a good thing we have the Internet and the (evil?!?) blogs to keep us all informed.
St. Paul is my church and nobody told us anything about the PADS shelter until after the decision had been made. So "dictator" sounds about right. And if you're one of those people who doesn't belong to one of the local churches, you're having arbitrary decisions made for you by people you neither elected nor otherwise chose to do so. So much for separation of church and state.
Bean, good call on the anonymous letter. The PR Herald-Advocate/Sun-Times News Group should brush-up on Journalism ethics & standards. They should also take a look at the practice of advocacy journalism by J. Johnson on the entire coverage of the PADS issue.
It's time to picket during all Sunday masses.
ooohhhh, how EMBARASSING to the clergy.
Who's in?
The media will LOVE this...
Perhaps Howie can show up with a Hooters girl on each arm.
Better than picket Sunday Mass/Service. Everyone should stop donating money to the collection basket until the nonsense Stops!
Do you think that maybe J. Johnson of the PR Advocate is for PADS because this blog is so against it? Is there anyone who logs on here that is for the PADS site, or even the idea of a PADS site in PR? If you want to see the reponse at St. Paul, check out the Sunday offerings and see if they go down....or maybe a few people will give more to make up for all those who quit giving their dollars. As a parent at the school, I would be very concerned about the site and as a member of the church, I would be very concerned about one individual making all the decisions. When did St Paul become "this is not a democracy. this is a dictatorship and I am the law" mentality?
I seem to recall that several years ago SPC wanted to cut down some trees and build a parking lot on the west side of the school. There were some issues with the neighbors regarding the lighting. They needed city approval to do that project.
They also wanted to move their dumpsters, and needed city approval for that too.
So why would SPC (or any other church) think that they would not need city approval to open a homeless shelter? I would imagine that a shelter would have to meet all code requirements for a residential facility, like the Summit Square, or a hotel, wouldn't it? Maybe the churches all meet those code requirements, who knows?
You say you are a member of the church and yet you ask when did the "this is not a democracy" mentality" take over. Hello?!?!?!?! Maybe they will have a vote on contraception, or women as priests.
The relationship between church leadership and the congragation has never been democratic.
No more donations in the envelope from me!
You have to read St. Mary's Episcopal Church's "Update Regarding PADS" & the June newsletter email from SPC to SM.
http://www.stmaryspr.org/
Here is one tidbit: "In the case of Park Ridge PADS, are we more likely to love and identify with our neighbor who owns a home in town? Or is it easier to have compassion and understanding for the neighbor who is homeless?" A. Carrubba
Sheltering of pervert priests? Big deal. Oppression of women? Who cares? Dark Ages views on birth control? Yawn......
But just let them try to bring a few outsiders into town once a week, and watch it hit the fan.
Father McKenzie,
With the exception of the "sheltering of pervert priests", those devoted to their church and its teachings have the right to hold views on women and birth control as they choose... Gratefully, the church, its teachings, and their adherents do not get to dictate public policy.
Perhaps you have not stopped to consider..."it" did hit the fan when people learned of the "sheltering of pervert priests"... The Catholic church took some huge "hits" in the fallout from that horrific mess...
Further still, it would now appear that when the church, any church, attempts to dictate public policy...especially policy that would appear to carry some inherent danger, risk, or threat in some capacity to a community... people are far less likely to just go along...and when the church, any church, attempts to do that in one's own back yard, especially in a community like Park Ridge...then "it" will surely hit the fan...
It's not a question of bringing in "outsiders"...it's a question of the nature of those "outsiders" and what the community will have to deal with if and when they come.
There are currently 217 properties listed as being in pre-foreclosure, foreclosure and bankruptcy...right here in Park Ridge. Charity begins at home. If it becomes necessary to open a homeless shelter in Park Ridge to give aid and comfort to the less fortunate among us, it would seem we have quite a potential pool of "needy" right here and now...without inviting in the roving band of homeless that are part of the PADS program...
...make that 222 properties...it seems 5 more have been added since last I checked. ...and so it goes...
Is there any way we coukd check to see how many of those 222 homes are undeveloped builder proporties that were bought up by the builder/developer before the housing market slowed down and their already developed proporties couldn't sell?
I don't think it's a question of being more compassionate towards those who lives here. It's more about allowing more homeless people in a certain place and anytime you allow people who are homeless especially if they're not emotionally stable, you're gonna have problems and that's what many people here in town are worried about.
If any place whether it's a suburb or a neighborhood of a big city has homelessness it should be taken care of there and not moved around and those who are chamical dependant should not be wondering around and more likely belong in hospitals or mental institutions where they can get the help they need.
Anonymous June 14, 2008 4:35 PM,
Yes...
http://usatoday.foreclosure.com/
...type in the zip and hit search.
You can sign up for a free 7 day trial to get the details.
PADS at SPC is an outrage. THere is nothing, nothing,nothing to justify importing mentally unstable, drug addled criminals into a young children's school and the neighborhood at large. The church can't even police its own pervert priests, how are we to believe it can conduct background checks on the homeless patrons? Give me a break!
Fr Carl leaves in 6 months, does he really care what his parish thinks? Failing to not only ask parents/parishioners opinions but even inform them of such a decision is what's slimey. School parents were notified with a letter buried among other paperwork that came home just before school let out for the summer.
Collections will go down, enrollment will drop, crime rate will increase. Count on it. And then watch the community change for the worse. A spate of foreclosures [222 mentioned above] consistent with national recession is one thing, crudification of the local market will only worsen that situation. Lock your doors, sign up wtih ADT, get a big dog.
THis is such a gigantic mistake.
As a parishioner and parent of SPC I am angered and almost numb by this decision- yes it was buried in paperwork that just said "please support us." Nothing more. No discussion, no information, nothing. It's ridiculous. This is not to say that there isn't a need and that we don't support helping hte homeless and believe in this ministry but I DO NOT believe inmixing a shelter for the homeless with elementary school children for one reason the health concerns and getting sick from being in a location with people who don't have regular access to care. Outside of that is the additional safety concerns etc. But for Fr. Carl who is leaving to make this decision, inform us by short letter, and leave town and school closes? How does that work? It leaves us all feeling left out of a school and parish we love. Many people are making arrangements to leave the school in the fall.
If you SPC school parents and / or parishioners want to influence what happens at your school / church you better get organized and move fast.
Fr. Carl and those he claims to have talked to about this were very clever in how they engineered the thing. They certainly knew well before the second to last day of school that this was a done deal. The reason the note came home that day is obvious... with the next day being the last day of school, and pretty well consumed by a mass and dismissal, they made sure that all of the drop off and pick up Moms and Dads had little chance to talk about the PADS at SPC and therefore, possibly, get organized in opposition.
Then Fr. Carl soon took off to Poland for nearly two weeks leaving no one behind of any authority to discuss the matter... because as he said in the Advocate... it’s my way or the highway.
Conveniently, Fr. Carl comes back from Poland on June 20... just in time for the then long anticipated meeting with the City Attorney regarding SPC submitting to the special use process.
Anybody think this hasn’t been carefully engineered??
Like I said folks... get organized... you might want to get a large group together to greet Fr. Carl at the SPC rectory steps as he returns from his Polish adventure on the 20th.... and before he can meet with the City Attorney.
Anon 9:41:
I understand your frustration and agree with most of what you said. But, as a non- Catholic, I need you to help me with something. Has there ever been a vote by the congregation on any issue or position that the Catholic leadership has taken? I do not believe there has been. The only way to vote is by financial support/lack of support. The Church believes this is a part of their mission and, as evidenced by many other positions, they do not need a majority vote to do it.
The other problem is this. I said this months ago on this board. The majority of the time shelters are in churches. The majority of churches are in neighborhoods. If PRMA listens to your issues on a school being there (an issue I agree with by the way), and moves the shelter to another church, then there will just be another issue. Maybe that is why the church did not ask. They have a strong belief that this is a part of their mission but they know that if they ask, no one will want it.
I agree with the person who said there are health and safety concerns.
Instead of calling it the Morello Parish Life Center, we can start to call it the Morello Tuberculosis Center.
Mike:
Thanks for the post and you are, to a degree, saying what I have been trying to say. I get the impression from many of the posts that PADS is a misguided bunch of idiots who are getting rich off the homeless. I do not agree with this. This is not about PADS (as imperfect as they are). It is about the fact that PADS considers all the homeless as eligable for their program if they follow certain rules.
Let's say that St. Paul's/PRMA decided they were going to have a full fledged soup kitchen every Sunday night. They would be operating thes kitchen independant of any outside orgainzation like PADS. There would be know overnight guests. The argument would still be the same. The soup kitchen would draw in homeless from all the other communities and these homeless from other communities would hang around. This is the real issue and it is an issue that can not be changed. If a person has concerns about what this will do to the community (I do), there is nothing PRMA can do to make them go away. They have no control over guests once they leave the facility.
So many arguments being stated cloud the issue and ignore the main fact which you stated. This whole point about servicing those from the PR community and no outsiders is silly. On another blog today there is an article about Center of Concern. This is a great organization we should support in whatever way we can, but they service and accept donations from outside of PR. The difference is they seem to address a more narrow segment of the homeless population.
You are right about some of the homeless being better served in hospitals or mental facilities. Neither I, nor I am sure you, made the decision to close the facilities or not proporly fund the VA. Unfortunately we are left with the mess.
To Anon@2:48 PM --
Would you be so kind as to list what concerns you have for, as you phrased it, "what this will do to the community?"
Would you be so kind again to list what, as you phrased it, "So many arguments being stated cloud the issue and ignore the main fact which you stated. This whole point about servicing those from the PR community and no outsiders is silly"
Thanks a bunch!
PRU:
Apologizes in advance for the length of this post.
My concerns are no different then the concerns many have posted here. I was responding to a comment by Mike about “more homeless people in certain places”. Is this going to dramatically increase the traffic and make up of the current homeless population? Is this population going to adversely affect businesses in PR? Are there going to be safety and security issues (children)? How will police handle these? Will there be attempts for future shelters and funding (tip of the iceberg)? Is going to the library with my daughter going to become a dramatically different event? If I let it, my mind can race to various scenarios I have read about from members of other communities who have shelters –various bodily secretions in the park, pedophiles (you know the drill). While some of my concerns may turn out to be wrong and or fear based, I feel they are reasonable. After all, to some degree I am fighting instinct. There is an innate part of me that thinks about me and protecting my family first.
The second point you asked about was simply that I see some of the arguments used to support a conclusion of no PADS shelter fail to address what I see as the real issue. Some have said that they would only want a shelter that services those that are from Park Ridge. By silly, I meant that it avoided the real issues (if that was the wrong choice of words I am sorry). There are valuable non-profits who service both people from PR and neighboring towns that people in the community support. Many of these have been here for awhile and there have been no major issues or backlash. They just target a narrower segment of the homeless community and therefore there is less perceived risk to the community.
Another example was the whole location/St. Mary's issue. Some people actually thought that this was going to change people’s opinions. I am sure that those who live next to St. Mary’s were happy about this but it did not address the issue of bringing additional risk to the community.
Another example is the argument about PADS success rate. I am not a doctor and I have not written a thesis on homelessness in America, but my gut tells me that the reason their success rate is low is that they choose to service those same people that many perceive as a risk to PR. I have said this in other posts and I will repeat it. Having had general experience seeing close relationships battle addiction issues, I can say that the percentage of people who achieve any long term “clean time” is very low. I will leave the mental health issue to those with more experience in the area, but my guess is the percentage issue is the same. As long as a shelter is open to the full range of homeless people, they will not reach some arbitrary acceptable percentage.
I have also heard arguments that PADS is not willing to take responsibility for those they service once they leave PADS (again about risk). We all know the answer to this. I am not a lawyer but I know that once they leave the shelter PADS cannot force them to go anywhere.
I have also heard the “enabling” argument – that somehow there is a major portion of the human race that has figured out they can play the system by being homeless. I guess this comes down to everyone’s individual gut feel. I have not seen any data that breaks down the homeless population into this category. I am sure there are people who play the system but I feel that the vast majority of homeless for a variety of reasons are in a place that I can in no way relate to. Put simply, for most homeless I do not believe this is a “lifestyle choice”. I cringe when I hear that!
Now we will hear about St. Paul’s and how could they locate this at a school. If PRMA moves it to another PR church we will hear from those neighbors. Why? Because, again, the real issue has not been addressed.
All these arguments have some validity but they also all avoid what I see as the real issue. When I look at the various positions against PADS in PR I ask two questions. Is it something that based on laws and peoples freedom can be changed? If it was changed would a shelter in PR be acceptable?
The answer to these questions for me is no. If there was a vote on PADS in PR I would vote no. Not because of servicing people outside of PR. Not because of an unacceptable transition percentage. Not because it was at St. Mary’s or now St Paul’s. Not because we are enabling people. Not because of the way PRMA and or PADS has handled this whole thing.
To me if you bring a shelter that services the entire gamete of the homeless community then there is risk. This is who PADS is. That does not mean they are evil people. That does not mean that these people are not worthy of help. What it does mean is I am not willing to take the risk.
I am sure there are people at PRMA and other “people of faith” in PR would tell me that this is the essence of the struggle. That I am supposed to face my fears and that ultimately our purpose is to help each other. I am trying but, as of this writing, I have failed.
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!!
This idea is insane!!! How dare anyone take such a chance with our children and our neighborhood. How much do you think it will cost the church to settle the lawsuits that come from the first child who is injured as a result of this plan???? Didn't the Pope just talk about protecting the children??? Does it really matter if a child is sexually assaulted by a priest or by a homeless person???
"Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me." I am so, so sad and disheartened to read the vitriolic words of my fellow Catholics. Where is the compassion, the pro-life "in all stages and forms" stance we claim to espouse as part of our faith? too bad these unstable, dirty people were ever born, huh? Instead of reading foreclosure statistics and oh so scary articles about the dangers of welcoming the "unclean" into such a pristine suburb, maybe we'd all be best served by re-reading the corporal works of mercy. I'm frankly more worried about what we are teaching our children about faith and charity and decency than the trumped of "danger" of being in contact with the *gasp* POOR.
So tell everyone, Anon@2:59 --
How many of those "unclean/poor" will you be taking into your own home, so as to demonstrate your "pro-life" faith to your children?
Surely, you wouldn't consider these "least of our brothers" to be a "danger" to your home and family, would you?
You are willing to live your Catholic faith by example, aren't you?
We're just asking...
Actually, I don't think poor and needy people automatically = dangerous. And no one is asking anyone to provide anyone with beds in our own homes. Churches throughout history have participated in charitable works, and Christian churches do this to follow the example of Christ. I believe it is not only Fr. Carl's right but his obligation as a pastor live the Gospel and help his community do the same. Other "nice" communities all over Chicagoland have hosted PADS shelters and not crumbled. Isn't Park Ridge strong and stable enough to handle it? And, for the record, yes, I do regularly volunteer at social service agencies and soup kitchens and try and treat all people with respect and dignity. Sometimes I fail; sometimes I get scared, but you know what? None of us are perfect, not even those of us who live in Park Ridge permanently.
In all seriousness, thanks for your openness to hearing dissenting voices on your blog. That at least gives me hope!
No one is asking anyone to take a homeless person into their home. What is being asked for is the smallest bit of Christian charity. If you think Park Ridge is too good for the homeless perhaps you should visit the library or any of the other public spaces in town. They are already here.
I can't help thing, "there, but for the grace of God, go I". The pettiness and false information being spred by the opponents of the PADS shelter is ridiculous.
Fr. Carl has been a leader in this community for over 18 years. Do you really think his sense of honor and fairness disappeared overnight. I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Living the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not easy, but it is the only way.
Perhaps all those so "frightened" of the homeless (poor) should all purchase weapons and protect their families from the marauding bands of perverts! Get real. This is nothing more than economic snobbery and I am ashamed of my fellow citizens and Catholics.
Meanspirited opposition is not required here. Understanding, compassion and empathy are. Grow up! The world is not Park Ridge!
I only hope if all those who are so adamant in their opposition never need to count on the charity of others. It is easy to judge, but not to be judged. I pray for your souls.
I do not live in Park Ridge, but I grew up in the area and know Fr. Carl very well. To suggest that he is "Napoleonic" in nature is absolutely ridiculous. How can a decision that attempts to care for the least of our brothers and sisters be dictatorial?
It seems to me like fear is behind almost every comment on this blog. Jesus embraced the lowest of the low-- prostitutes, lepers, the outcast-- every day of his life. Why can't St. Paul's do the same for just one day a week in a controlled, locked-down environment? To suggest that the area will be teeming with pedophiles and criminals is absolutely ridiculous. God forbid any one of you loses a job, forecloses on a house, etc. and finds yourself in the unenviable position of being homeless. Who will help you then?
We stand by our characterization of Pastor Morello as Napoleonic. He is not only attempting to dictate public policy and political action to his own flock, but he is also, along with the other dictatorial PRMA members, attempting to dictate public policy and political action to the entire community.
People who have chosen to leave the larger city settings and live and raise their children in "Action Ridge" have a right to preserve that setting without the intrusion of short sighted and over zealous do-gooders who want to tax our small city resources with their willingness to introduce elevated risk factors into the community.
We would suggest to those who do not like the "economic snobbery" of Park Ridge or the less urbanized elements our town offers that they too have the option of leaving Park Ridge if it is not what they envision it to be.
Again, we will ask -- who among you "good christians" is willing to house one of the poor homeless souls in your own home one night a week? What is your reason for what is clear evidence of your unwillingness to do so? What is your reason for demanding that the entire community carry out your faithfilled zeolotry in the absence of your own personal willingness or ability to do so?
You "good christians" seem to forget that there are those that do not believe as you do -- That there is no Jesus nor Bible that informs their conduct. And it is the right of those, who do not believe as you do, to make their voices heard on an issue of public policy and political action.
You are right, there are those whose beliefs do not involve Jesus or the Bible, but does that excuse them from acting in a charitable manner. I know of know organized religion, non-Christian, that doesn't encourage charity and good deeds.
Do-gooders, as you characterize them, are what make a community livable. Perhaps you feel we should all be survivalists?
As I understand it, no municipal funds will be spent on the PADS shelter, no public land occupied. I believe there is still the separation of Church and State, even in Park Ridge!!
As to your description of Fr. Carl as Napoleonic--do you know him, have you met him, have you spoken to him? He is a wonderful man and a wonderful priest. It is his duty live the Gospel message, and he does. As someone said, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor should it be. Someone needs to hold us to a higher standard.
Nowhere have I read what your solution is to the homeless problem. Or doesn't it matter to you? Can you close your eyes to those less fortunate and still sleep at night?
Very good, you seem to be coming to an understanding that you must make your case for PADS that doesn't revolve around some erroneous claim of "ministry". Get to it.
When it comes to charitable giving, we allow for the fact that grown ups get to make their own choices. We wouldn't dream of demanding that our neighbors contribute to the charity of our choice; that's what do-gooders do, and it's obnoxious.
If you do not understand that municipal funds and resources will be spent on the PADS shelter then we strongly urge you to sit down and do your homework. PADS is government funded. PADS has asked for and received contributions of tax money from almost all the towns in which it operates. PADS will utilize our police department and ambulance services as is necessary. All of those things equal "municipal funds". So you are wrong, again.
In answer to your questions, yes there are members of the PRU Crew who are familiar with Morello, have dealt with Morello, have spoken to Morello, and who find him to be rather obnoxious. But then, the members of the PRU Crew are all thinking adults without the handicap of letting others think for them.
We have offered a solution to the homeless problem; we have asked that all the faithfilled zealots take one poor homeless soul into their own homes one night a week. Why is that option not being answered or considered?
This "separation of church and state" nonsense really burns me up. It is a phrase which is being chronically misused by people trying to argue that the church answers to no one but itself. In fact, the federal court of appeals in Chicago has said that the use of the "separation of church and state" argument to avoid zoning laws is nonsense, although they put it somewhat more delicately than me. The principle of "separation" really deals with preventing the government from favoring one religion over another. Would everybody please STOP misusing that phrase. As a lawyer, it's driving me crazy.
I'm so impressed Alderman Dave is a lawyer! His INTERPRETATION is his. There are those who disagree with it.
It seems in Park Ridge the government favors elitist attitudes. We don't need to worry about it favoring any religion!
This entire subject is getting tiresome. Cannot people of good will disagree on issues without instigating personal attacks?
Rumor, inuendo and gossip have made this issue overblown. Let's all calm down and try to respect other's opinions. Who knows we might be known as peacemakers.
Who and what we are must be defined by the whole of our lives. Not just a position on one issue.
Anon@1:59 --
Perhaps your use of loose language was unintended, but we would like to point out that your "personal attack" on Alderman Dave is a comical diversion, as the "interpretation" of the law belongs to the court, not Alderman Dave.
Ah, but you must notice he did not quote the court's ruling. He paraphrased in his own language.
No personal attack on Alderman Dave intended. It just gets tiresome that some people believe their profession makes their words more relevant.
Who knows, I might be a Supreme Court Justice!
You're very funny, though we think that too is not intentional -- just as you "intended" no personal attack on Alderman Dave.
If you would like, we can dig up an email we received that cites the case in question, then you may come here and offer your own "interpretation" of the court's "interpretation" of the law.
The humor was intended. I'm glad you found it amusing. I, too, find you amusing. Dig up the email and I'd be glad to give you my interpretation.
Remember, the law is a living thing, open to interpretation. English Common Law, on which our system of laws is based, allows for discussion, interpretation, and rulings.
World Outreach Conference Center
v.
City of Chicago,
Case No. 06 C 2891
(N.D. Ill. May 13, 2008 - Wayne R. Anderson, Dist. Judge)
Knock yourself out!
I've known Carl Morello since he came to SPC. I've worked with Carl Morello. I've helped Carl Morello on many occasions both financially and as a volunteer at SPC. And Carl Morello, like too many priests and ministers who hear nothing but "Yes, Father" and "Yes, Reverend" from naifs who get their God and man confused, has an ego befitting someone who would let, if not encourage, the naming of a building after himself while he's still alive. (think Fmr. Gov. James R. Thompson and Fmr. Cook County Board chairman John Stroger. Great company, isn't it?). Carl likes you so long as you agree with him; if you don't, he will placate and patronize you until he runs out patience; and then he will tell you, with that soft voice and winsome smile, that it's his way or the highway. And mean it. Napolean had nothing on Fr. Carl when it comes to being a dictator.
Whoever commented that Carl has been "a leader in this community for over 18 years" is dead wrong. The only thing he's led is his little empire at SPC. Prior to this PRMA/PADS fiasco, the only time I heard him do anyting of a "community" nature is when he showed up at the City Council meeting and demanded a rule change or exemption for his school's dumpsters. Let him live the Gospel the way he chooses and we'll live it the way we choose it. And if he wants to do the Jesus thing, let him give a homeless wino his bed, not the gym that we bought for SPC with no intention of naming it the "Morello" anything.
Thanks U'ground. But I'm a big boy (too big). 1:59 obviously has not read the cases I'm talking about. Not sure there is a whole lot of difference, but I was paraphrasing the court decision, not interpreting it. Somewhere in my archives is the actual quote but I think it is at home, and I am here in my lawyerly ivory tower, so I can't get at it. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to post it tonight if I remember. Stay tuned 1:59. By the way U'ground and 1:59, see if you can get your hands on the recent decision in the Northern District of Illinois, World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, where Judge Andersen inferred that my interpretation/paraphrasing of the issue is accurate. And I did not level a personal attack on anyone. I simply said people are misusing the "separation" principle. At least that is my interpretation of what I said.
Hello Alderman Dave --
Good to see you catching up with us.
I see you beat me to it, PRU. The judge in World Outreach cites a couple Seventh Circuit decisions. It is one of those decisions, Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.2d 752 (7th Cir. 2003), where the Seventh Circuit said, and I QUOTE (not interpret, summarize or paraphrase) that federal law does not require municipal governments to favor religious uses "in the form of an outright exemption from land-use regulation...[N]o such free pass for religious land uses masquerades among the legitimate protections [federal law] affords to religious exercise." Id. at 762. The defense rests.
Looks like some of Carl’s acolytes found PRU and want to sing his praises. Go ahead... but no matter what he’s done in the past it doesn’t give him cart blanche going forward. He’s the Pastor but he still has to have some accountability to the congregation. And even if you say he does not he needs to take on some responsibility to his flock. Because, in this case, if he does not then the contributions dry up and the school starts losing students and SPC becomes like Mary, Seat of Wisdom. Yikes!
I belong to St. Paul of the Cross, but I have no children in school there, so I don't have the same immediate concerns that the parents of SPC students have.
But you concerned parents better not expect city officials to bail you out on this. The most they'll be able to do, if they're inclined to do anything at all, is require PRMA/SPC/PADS to get a special use permit, for which SPC will probably qualify.
Your beef is with your pastor, Fr. Carl. So either you grow spines and put the heat on him for doing whatever he wants with the facilities we paid for, or you can check your outrage at the door and slink back home. This isn't religion, it's politics. And as the Chicago ward bosses used to say: "It ain't beanbag."
Here's what I don't get...if any SPC parishioners/school parents disagree with the pastor's decision about who is and who is not welcome to use parish facilities, then why don't they pull their kids from the school, stop attending Mass there, stop any Sunday contributions, and vote with their money and feet? They surely have that right. SPC is not public property. As long as the parish obtains a special use permit according to village zoning laws, if needed, as mentioned previously, well, it is just tough luck for those who disagree, right? Kind of like if one Park Ridge neighbor invited their homeless cousin Tilly to move in with them, despite her penchant for cats, bad perfume, and stinky cheese. It may be unfortunate and unpleasant for the other neighbor, but really there isn't a darn thing you can do about it -- except move. If you don't want St. Paul's pastor to tell you how to live your life or tell you who should be able to live in your house or patronize your business, why assume you can tell him what to do with the facility over which he has authority?
Me again, the guy who does not want to take the risk. There are two points here that confuse me (I am easliy confused).
First, I understand the positions taken by those posting recently in support of PADS and the good father. But, it is as if some of you are saying there is no risk, or at the very least dramatically discounting the risk. I love the comment about "nice" communities. Yet you ignore that some of the citizens in these "nice" communities are having buyers remorse. There is a website dedicated to the PADS issue in Glen Ellyn.
http://www.glenellynsafety.org/
There have also been discussions and documentation on some of the concerns of the citizens of Arlington Heights. You may not agree with these concerns. Your "risk baramoter" may be differnt then mine. But to say that these concerns are unreasonable on their face is, in my opinion, wrong.
Second, I am confused by the answer often given, "Do you take a homeless person into your home"? I will grant you that is very good at bringing the discussion to a halt, but I am not sure I find it reasonable.
I support the cause to Alzheimers in a variety of ways. If genetics mean anything, I headed in that direction. But I do not have patients in my house. I support the troops yet I have never inlisted. I support the police but I do not have a satelite jail cell in my basement. I do not think it is necessairly inconsistent for someone to be pationate about serving the homeless yet believe they are better served in an environment such as PADS ( I know PADS has huge issues). Isn't that the same argument they use agains those of use how have reservations about PADS?
-You do not care about homeless unless you take them in your home.
-You do not care about homeless unless you support PADS.
They seem alike to me. Of course I have been accused of being a hypocrite at times.
I am facinated by all this outrage against SPC. I am not Catholic, in fact I do not attend any church on a regular basis so someone will have to tell me what I am missing. Has the Catholic church ever polled the congregation on any position or any action they consider a part of their ministry? I am thinking about all the different positions I have seen them take over the years and I cannot think of one example of when they had a vote (could be wrong).
So people have been going to Mass for 20, 30, 40 years seeing this and now they are outraged???? I guess to some degree religion can be like that old adage "take what you need and leave the rest". We all have different opinions and make mistakes. We sin and god will forgive us. Only this one cannot be "confessed" away. You can confess the fact that you disagree with this church position but it appears they are still coming.
So now we get back to the human world - vote with your pocketbooks!
As a parent of a St. Paul student, I can tell you what has angered parents the most is Fr. Carl's 'talk to the hand' attitude. Fr. Carl and the staff spend a lot of time teaching the students that bullying is wrong, now its time for Fr. Carl to practice what he preaches.
How could Fr. Carl have the audacity to think that Christianity and kindness starts at SPC? How dare he believe that the parishioners would actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Doesn't he know that the people of Park Ridge moved to Park Ridge so that we did not have to interact with the poor and sick? When Jesus talked about helping the poor he really meant only giving them money and not that we actually have to see or personally interact with the poor. There is no way JC meant for us Christians to actually have to be within a 10 mile radius of the poor and sick. We are so much better than those people. I am happy so many of my fellow SPC Catholics are nipping this act of compassion and kindness in the bud. Let us all make our weekly donations and pay someone else to help the poor and sick somewhere else. (Kind of like how we pay for our lawns to be done by outsiders but we all know we don't want them living amongst us.). What will Fr. Carl think of next?
And to all my fellow Park Ridge citizens who are against PADS I am happy to call you my neighbor. You keep us safe from all sorts of horrendous people who have no business crossing our boundaries and need to be kept as far away from Park Ridge as possible. You are our own Minutemen. Maybe you guys can get some signs we can post on our lawn that read "KEEP THE POOR AND SICK OUT OF PARK RIDGE."
Can you imagine, a pastor who with his people intends to 'walk the walk' with the homeless when he could just 'talk the talk,' ride out his last year and live happily ever after! What is he? Some kind of Christian leader???
Imagine that, sheltering the homeless, the audacity of him, literally following Chirst's message!
Joe and Diana Garvey
St. Paul Parishioners
Proud of Father Carl and the many members of our parish who support this wonderful ministry
To the last post of carl supporters - how about if he walks the walk FOR THE KIDS for whom the school was built?
Help them stay safe at the expense of his coffers? A catholic priest? Oh, let's don't be ridiculous...
If you want your kids to help the homeless, pack up the family truckster and get your suburban butts to Pacific Garden Mission - walk your own walk to the ghetto and get to work.
Please - feel free to put your own kids at risk as much as you want. Maybe Carl Morello can console you back into numb sheepfulness again when something goes horribly wrong...not if, WHEN.
I am embarrassed that my fellow parishioners are so completely ignorant and hypocritical. “Yes, I send my child to a Catholic school and believe in Jesus Christ but helping those less fortunate-I’ll pass on that!” I completely understand the questions and concerns that parishioners and parents had in the beginning. However, every question and concern was addressed so it is time to drop it! No the people registered with PADS do NOT have communicable diseases, no they won’t be lingering around Park Ridge. People need to see how a PADS shelter works before bad mouthing it in fear. The operations are very organized and run smoothly.
Father Carl is a compassionate and kind person who stands up for what he believes in. Someone who previously posted was right on by saying, yes Father Carl does not have much time left at SP-he could have coasted on, but no, he is a man of conviction and continues to lead his parish in the way of God.
Carl Morello is an idiot dictator. His actions will come back to bite his blessed ass.
katie d, you know what they say about assuming...
jesus christ has actually rather little to do with why i send my kids to catholic school. you would find many school parents who hold much of the professional catholic stuff to be a big bowl of hooey.
in 2008, how does one hang all accountability on the pastor and church and the bible and, lol, jesus instead of accepting it as one's own?
i have worked many a shelter and soup kitchen. i made up my mind that young kids should not be thrown into that mix, and that is a reasoned and reasonable position that i came up with on my own. i do not need to be told what to think- why do you? why do you believe PADS, that they conduct 'background checks'? did you ever wonder how [minimally] they define the term? did you ever ask yourself about their universe of discourse and if it jibes with that of law enforcement? if they are going to borrow such terms, it should all match up, but in truth, PADS definition falls very short of anything a police officer or lawyer finds remotely adequate. do you have written protocols at your disposal so you can verify PADS' methods? no, they know better than to provide them, of course. PADS is a savvy outfit. have you considered that their desire to locate within churches has nothing to do with jesus at all? because it doesn't - they admit as much. the gospel angle is a line you are being fed by fr carl so the funding comes through as easily as possible. this is a money issue, not a 'holy' issue. holy, at this point, is meaningless anyway - everyone from the PRMA who is involved in this thing has lied their way up and down the topic- holy and dishonest are mutually exclusive in my book.
jesus has no place in this discussion - that is a cop out used in place of quantified argument. it is a cheap and easy position, and it doesn't hold up. your jesus remarks are heard as jibberish to anyone that is worried about health and safety of little kids and the deterioration of the town. i am worried about protecting my own, today, not about a story written many hundreds of years ago.
there are some dangerous people who live their lives in the homeless shelter circuit, period; no one would deny this. even if the general population of PADS guests is comprised of mostly law abiding persons, there are a couple of bad actors here and there that make it through the cracks in the system unnoticed. PADS admits this - there are documented instances of child predators who made their way onto the rosters. that fact cannot be disputed - PADS does not have the legal means to keep them out!!! are you getting that- PADS does not possess the power to fully review the history of its guests. PADS does not contract such review out, either. same state of facts surrounding health and hygiene. there are gaping holes in their program.
SO
they have no business being at my children's school. case closed.
when little kids are concerned, there is no amount of unnecessary risk that is passable. all your praying in the world will not relieve you of comsic dereliction of parental duty for hanging your kids out to dry so fr carl can feel like a saviour or get some money or whatever it is he is sacrificing the parish for.
those of us who are against PADS at SPC are not worried about what an angry white bearded god might think about the issue. that is fantasy - we live in the here and now where dirty rotten criminals do dirty rotten things and our little kids are defenseless against them. as much as many may hope it's so, neither is a michelangelo-cloud-floating-lord-of-hosts waiting to fell us PADS opposers with thunderbolts nor can a blue eyed swarthy glowing jesus help the little kids when risk turns into reality and no one is there to stop it. only we as their parents have the ability to make their worlds as safe as possible for as long as possible, indeed, not forever.
i am totally possessed of the obligation to keep them as safe and as innocent as i can for as long as i can - the assault on childhood is ridiculous as it is, i hardly expected their own school to take up arms against it, too. for me, and many like me, keeping PADS out of their school is just another battle in the war to let them be little.
Anon@12:56. Big time kudos to you. I agree with you 100%. I am annoyed a people who think we are doing something wrong protecting our little ones from this. There's plenty of time for them to be exposed to the ills of life.
Some questions...
Isn't helping the homeless something a church should be involved in?
What EXACT danger does the PADS shelter pose to the kids?
Can't the people opposed to Fr. Carl's decision go to another church?
Oh, and about your trite little picture of Fr. Carl: Napoleon brought a standard, equal law code that improved the lives of and provided social justice to many people, most of them new citizens because of his law. Didn't happen during the democratic reign of France. Sometimes the right, difficult decision must be made by a strong person willing to do the right thing.
kevin said --
"Some questions...
Isn't helping the homeless something a church should be involved in?
What EXACT danger does the PADS shelter pose to the kids?
Can't the people opposed to Fr. Carl's decision go to another church?
Oh, and about your trite little picture of Fr. Carl: Napoleon brought a standard, equal law code that improved the lives of and provided social justice to many people, most of them new citizens because of his law. Didn't happen during the democratic reign of France. Sometimes the right, difficult decision must be made by a strong person willing to do the right thing."
1. -- If the church chooses to and as long as their choice of doing so isn't forced down the throats of people who aren't members of the/their church and/or who object to being conscripted to this service.
2. -- Please more carefully review the various comments on this site for the information you are asking about.
3. -- People shouldn't have to leave their church because one flawed man (who IS leaving the parish in a short time) decides to do something objectionable to parish members. And then there is the little matter of nasty collusion on the part of some other pastors at other local churches for those looking to leave SPC.
As for the picture of Morelleon -- we feel it captures the essence of the man in all his dictatorial glory. We aren't ever going to be big fans of dictators, no matter how much their supporters may tout the highly questionable benefits of dictatorships.
Post a Comment