On November 18, 2008, the day after the City Council passed the final reading of ordinances allowing for the licensing and regulation of temporary overnight homeless shelters in Park Ridge, we told PRU readers that "we sure hope none of us is given a reason to have to talk about PADS or the PRMA for a long while."
Only a month later, mere days from the New Year before the champagne had even been popped and poured, the Park Ridge Ministerial Association managed to piss-off our Bluebird of New Year happiness.
In several emails received from faithful readers, we were informed of the following:
HOMELESS PEOPLE MAY NOT SLEEP IN PARK RIDGE, BUT WE CAN STILL OFFER TO FEED THEM: The Park Ridge Ministerial Association is sponsoring Sunday Night Suppers. Starting January 18, 2009 all who are hungry or homeless are welcome!! Every Sunday Night doors open at 5:45 p.m. and the meal is served at 6:00 p.m., St. Paul of the Cross Roman Catholic Church, in the Morello Parish Life Center, 320 South Washington in Park Ridge. For more information call 847/692-6767.
This gem of an announcement was made not in the St. Paul of the Cross bulletin, or school take home, or church. No. Making such an announcement in any SPC-related venue would have made too much sense. But as we all know, Fr. Carl Morelleon doesn't like to let his own parishioners know what's taking place in their parish before done deals are announced some place else. No. Can't have that. Must not tell SPC parishioners anything first. Let the latest goings on at SPC be announced at a City Council meeting or, most recently, in St. Luke's Parish Notes. Clearly you all see the brilliance of this method of operating.
We also have been hearing that the PRMA is planning to invite all of the guests from the weekly Sunday Night Suppers to pray all evening (and into the morning) in the sanctuary of one of the PRMA member churches. In effect, they will be holding a lock in at this unnamed church so that the folks attending the supper won’t be out in the cold once the supper concludes. Because if there's anything hungry, homeless people need it's to be awake all night, praying -- unless our PRU readers aren't buying that bullshit either.
If the plan is to lock in the homeless and call the thing an all night prayer session, vigil, revival, or come-to-Jesus meeting, but then look the other way as the homeless fall asleep for the night, we've got news for the PRMA and any other interested party -- that is a temporary overnight homeless shelter, and we expect the City Council to enforce the licensing regulations they just passed.
The PRU Crew are also wondering, if the homeless are invited to a soup kitchen set up in the SPC gym, will those soup kitchen suppers be legal under the recently discussed, changed, and passed environmental health codes? In the minutes of the Special City Council Environmental Health Workshop(.pdf) held last April, it is noted that "the floor was opened for a question/answer session. Various questions were raised about church and community organizations holding bake sales and Pot Luck suppers, etc. Events that are planned which include the serving of food are said to be permitted, as long as the event is not open to the public at large." (emphasis added)
B.O.H.I.C.A.
80 comments:
um, well, see, the rules are NOT for them. dont you know that? duh.
I understand the PRMA is bound and determined to do this ministry of theirs without any regard for what anybody thinks or what dangers are possible or what the law is. What I don't understand is their complete obsession with making sure our kids are as exposed as possible! Does this really have to be in the school gym? Didn't they listen to any of the concerned parents? They are acting like complete jerks.
It just bums me out completely, how Fr. Morello insists he is not acting in an underhanded manner and how he is not intentionally keeping information from his parishioners. And just when I turn the corner on giving him that benefit of the doubt, information such as this comes to light and just reinforces the idea that he IS in fact, intentionally withholding information from us. Sorry to say Fr. Morello, but "here's your hat, what's your hurry?"
From what we've seen of the PRMA in connection with the PADS shelter, it looks like our religious leaders and their disciples all consider themselves above our earthly laws, or at least those lowly earthly laws like local zoning and licensing ordinances that don't raise Ten Commandment-related issues.
And Community Church pastor Bandito Brett "Ignore the city and open the shelter" McCleneghan proves to be a modern day prophet, although with a little bit of a twist.
If there's a Vegas line on whether and how promptly the City, led by Mayor PADS and Carl Morello cultist Chief Swoboda, acts to enforce the City ordinances re food service and de facto shelters, I'm taking the over. Because Mayor PADS is counting on the PRMA and its groupies to get him re-elected, so he and Swoboda will need a more than a few jolts from the defibrillator panels to get their hearts started in any sort of ordinance enforcement direction.
And won't it be fun to watch Buzz Hill dance on the head of the enforce/can't enforce pin?
May I ask anyone who is a member of SPC and regularly attends Mass or church events a question? I am not a member and not even Catholic but just to clarify, there was never any discussion of this at any church function? Not one person representing the church (Fr. Carl or otherwise) ever said they were considering this? Not one person said something like "Well, it seems like the shelter idea is dead for now so maybe we can have a soup kitchen". So what you are saying is that 95% of the SPC parisioners were completely shocked by this?
Anybody who has watched Morello operate at St. Paul knows that he's sweetness and light so long as you agree with him. But the moment you don't, it's his way or the highway. Which is pretty much the way the Catholic Church operates, and which might explain how all that "Father knows best" pedophilia went on for so long.
But so long as we keep endorsing guys like McCleneghan, Morello, Larson, etc. with our weekly donations, s'all good for them.
Anon@12:58 --
Nice try asshat, but the done deal was not announced anywhere to the general SPC parishioner population.
That's the shock -- SPC parishioners were told the idea was being considered, not that is was a done deal.
I'm an SPC parishioner and got to Mass every Sunday, so I hear the sermon and read the bulletin. The idea of a Sunday night supper was floated in the bulletin a few weeks ago on the social service ministry page. But as I recall, it wasn't presented as a done deal, and it didn't have any shelter-like elements to it.
And it wasn't discussed in any of the sermons I heard.
So those who ask questions are asshats??? Perhaps you read something in my question that was not there. The idea that there was not mention or discussion of this is flabergasting to me so I thought I would ask someone who is a member of the Parish for clarification. My neighbor down the street is a member of SPC so I guess I will ask him the next time I see him. By the way, you answered part of my question, that being you said that people were aware it was being considered.
Anon@1:20 --
No -- it's just you who is an asshat.
BWAAAHHHAAA...
As the saying goes...there are no stupid questions...but there sure are some inquisitive idiots!
Hoover's comment brought up an excellent issue for consideration... If the PRMA and their devotees try to circumvent our local laws, will the acting Chief of Police do his job? Will Frimark do his job...for a change?
Inquiring minds want to know!
PRU:
Good call on anonymous 12:58/1:20 being an "asshat," even though I'm not sure exactly what that means.
I, too, am a St. Paul parishioner and can say that the idea of a soup kitchen/de facto homeless shelter was never officially reported to the whole parish (in either a sermon or the bulletin). But taking a cue from Hoover, I'd bet that Morello sycophants like the Schmidt-Garvey woman, Ms. Conlon, etc. didn't have to read the news on the St. Luke's website.
Can't wait for Morello's departure, even if we will likely be stuck with his vanity of the "Morello Parish Life Center." Here's hoping that the Archies won't give us another one of these politician pastors which seem to be the Catholic Church's flavor of the month as it tries to stem the tide of mainstream American Catholics jumping ship for other religions.
What's to prevent a special permit for indoor public gatherings past a certain time in the evening?
Corpo-Cit,
Nothing, as long as it isn't being used as a temporary overnight homeless shelter...which is already covered under the city's ordinances...
...by the way...
I remembered one of your not-too-long-ago comments about Schmidt wanting to get rid of all the community service officers...I went and looked and found where you said Schmidt was "the new boss, same as the old boss"...Schmidt denied it, but you seem to choose to believe it anyway...but you never answered why you choose to believe it...
April 2008
Journal of the Proceedings of the Special City Council Environmental Health Workshop of the City of PR
http://www.parkridge.us/file.asp?F=657A74EA19574F099354407305A5D16A%2Epdf&N=Approved+CC+Workshop+Env+Hlth+4+7+08%2Epdf&C=events_documents
Dear Anonymous 4:36pm,
Would you please check the web address you gave.
I keep getting error
Anon@7:05,
You have to copy and paste the entire thing into your browser bar then click go. Blogger software doesn't allow html links in comments.
It is the same link we posted in the last paragraph as our article today.
I choose to believe it because it was said as we were sipping egg nog from the same bowl.
A denial now is as good as a retraction.
No skin off my nose either way. I'm no fan of Pry-mark but I feel like I'm getting the same double talk from Schmidt-head.
At this point, Ralph Nader is my write-in vote.
feeding the homeless! what an outrage! we MUST put a stop to this sort of nefarious dastardly behavior!
oh, and just fyi, guys...i think one of my neighbors down the street donated some old clothes to goodwill. maybe you should picket their house!
genius...you are not getting the point. They were told they (PRMA) couldn't do what they want so they are making their own rules. I don't think anyone is against helping the homeless, it's the blatant arrogance of the PRMA that they are exempt from the laws of the community. They have done a fine job of creating irreperable damage in the relationships among parishoners.
Your uneducated comments are screeching.
Genius,
If you want to feed the homeless, there's nothing stopping you from inviting them into your home to do so.
If you want to donate items to clothe the homeless, there's nothing stopping you from taking your crap to Goodwill or the Salvation Army to do so.
And, as has often been said around here, if you want to provide shelter to the homeless, there's nothing stopping you from giving them the bed in your spare bedroom.
But there ARE rules in place stopping you from doing what the PRMA is trying to do, the way the PRMA is trying to do it.
To paraphrase a dead Greek guy, good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the them.
The St. Paul commenters who said nothing was posted in the SPC bulletin about this Sunday Night Supper plan being a done deal are wrong, to the extent that it WAS advertised as a done deal in this past Sunday's (1/4/08) bulletin via a full page advertisement that not only identifies St. Paul as the place, but also provides a map to help all those non-Park Ridge resident PADS and non-PADS people who have no idea where St. Paul is.
And although it says nothing about any kind of prayer service or lock-in/shelter, it does state that these suppers are for "All who are hungry or homeless...." So unless "homeless" has become synonymous with "hungry," it sounds like "Sunday Night Suppers" may be more than just food. Should we be shocked that the PRMA, Morello, and their uber-"Christian" disciples can't quite tell the whole truth about what they really will be doing?
But since this program is for "All who are hungry," will they serve anybody - including all SPC parishioners and all Park Ridge residents - who just happens to be in the mood for a bite around 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, beginning on 1/18/09? Will St. Paul become an alternative to Al's Beef or Baileys on Sunday evening?
sure. i'm sure you'd be welcome. if you can stomach being so close to those awful homeless people!
yeah...didn't think so.
Aside from what PRU has heard they are trying to do, and at the grave risk of being refered to as "asshat" again, I am going to ask another question.
Do you (anyone reading this) want a soup kitchen in Park Ridge, whether it be at SPC or any other PRMA church (just a soup kitchen with no overnight stays)?
Anony-mous, I can understand your objection if what PRU has heard is true. If this is nothing more then a ruse to have 20 people sleep in the church then they should be required to follow all the steps as defined in the whole PADS debacle.
Related to a soup kitchen, I read the link provided by PRU. What an impresive and comprehensive document covering the subject of environmental health in Park Ridge - 2 pages!! Based on this document, it appears to me the city has not weighed in on this specific topic. Of course this means we have about 6 months of meetings and no decisions to look forward to.
Corporal, I think I need to clarify something. Since I am not sure who you are, I am not positive what conversation you are talking about. But I think something may have been lost in the translation.
I am not in favor of doing away with the CSOs. I am in favor of considering the possibility of moving them out of the current space into a different space, perhaps the house on Courtland which was purchased by the City but which is now sitting unused. I know that space would need some work, but the move might help ease the crowding at the current facility at least a little without requiring the City to spend $16 million plus. Hope that helps clear things up.
yep. what a total waste of time and energy. and all because a bunch of control freaks are so uptight that they can't bear the thought of having homeless people in their little stepford town.
"genius":
As others have said many times before, if you really want to do something productive about homelessness, you and your fellow travelers should gather up all of Park Ridge's native homeless and find homes for them instead of just giving them a meal or a flop one night a week.
Try renting them some of these vacant homes and condos that people can't sell and/or are being foreclosed on. I'll throw in a hundo or two toward that effort, and I'm willing to bet that most of the other people who oppose the ineffective PADS scam of traveling road show shelters would probably do likewise.
But for some reason that's not good enough for you and your fellow PRMA clones. For some reason that I can't grasp, you want/need to import homeless from other communities one night a week into our "stepford town" and then send them packing the next morning. Those of us who think PADS is a scam (or just plain ineffective) would have more respect for you if you at least insisted on a 7-night-per-week shelter, but apparently your Christianity doesn't extend that far.
genius--take your meds and move on.
“Genius” – I’m responding to your 10:29 AM post. I certainly do not think all folks without a home are awful. Some using soup kitchens and emergency shelters are grandfatherly Santa Clauses, yet many are a danger to themselves and others. I am not willing to take risks for your project. You have options on where to interact with needy people, but I have few options because I live near SPC and can’t sell or move. Is this all about making things convenient for you, while causing anguish for neighbors, and forcing hungry folks to commute?
As others have said many times before, if you really want to do something productive about homelessness, you and your fellow travelers should gather up all of Park Ridge's native homeless and find homes for them instead of just giving them a meal or a flop one night a week.
that frames it in an "all or nothing" kind of mindset, which is counter-productive. doing something is useful, even if it doesn't fix or solve the problem entirely.
it does make a nice cop-out, however.
Try renting them some of these vacant homes and condos that people can't sell and/or are being foreclosed on. I'll throw in a hundo or two toward that effort, and I'm willing to bet that most of the other people who oppose the ineffective PADS scam of traveling road show shelters would probably do likewise.
i'm willing to bet they wouldn't. it would take about four seconds after floating that plan for the cries of "what about the children!" to erupt across park ridge. that plan doesn't address the problems purportedly posed by PADS. these people aren't acceptable to pass through town once a month, but you'll put'em up in apartments? nonsensical.
But for some reason that's not good enough for you...
uh...because it's not happening? and never will?
... and your fellow PRMA clones.
ad hominem. always a classic.
take your meds and move on.
more ad hom. gotta love this site's willingness to engage in honest debate!
"Genius" --
Since you brought up the issue of honest debate, we would remind you that the Crew is still waiting for your honest treatment of the city and library budgets, and your wants and needs for new library programs -- so that we can honestly debate the merits of your "case".
Here we go again!!! PADS is dead (for now) and I think most are in agreement that if they try to make this food first and then sleep for the night, that would be a shelter and they would be required to meet the guidlines.
I will ask it again. Do you want a soup kitchen in Park Ridge?
it's funny. everyone seems to agree that helping/feeding the homeless is a worthwhile cause. most posters here just don't want it done anywhere near where they live.
but, let's think for a second, shall we? if we want to help/feed the homeless, that needs to be done somewhere, right?
and, regardless of where you pick, it's going to be close to where someone lives. isn't it?
so is this just classic NIMBY? if so, ok. i don't agree with that outlook, but at least i can respect your honesty.
no, we all don't agree "that helping/feeding the homeless is a worthwhile cause."
"we," as in our park ridge community, can't realistically begin to help/feed even a fraction of all the homeless from around the chicago area (or even the northwest suburbs) whom are being lured here by the prma and those who seem to expect a parade for being willing to sign on to provide a sunday night supper or cot in a school gym once a week.
why not start by identifying those park ridge "residents" who now find themselves homeless after having lived in a house or apt. here in park ridge? why not take the lead in energizing this community to find ways to take care of "our own" homeless, and on more than a one-day a week basis? why keep saying something like that won't happen without even trying it?
if every other community, especially those served by pads, did likewise, there would be no need to shuffle the homeless off to another different community every night because there would be an inherent comfort level from dealing with homeless from our own community rather than with strangers from other places with no ties to park ridge. do you think the daily town-to-town perp walk is a good thing? c'est la vie.
or you can continue to do little but take comfort in the self-deception that you are morally superior to the rest of us.
amen.
"we," as in our park ridge community, can't realistically begin to help/feed even a fraction of all the homeless from around the chicago area (or even the northwest suburbs)...
can we help/feed *some* of them? a few? any? some is better than none, isn't it?
the argument you're employing amounts to "we can't do everything, so we might as well do nothing." it's a nonsensical cop-out.
whom are being lured here by the prma and those who seem to expect a parade for being willing to sign on to provide a sunday night supper or cot in a school gym once a week.
"lured", "expect a parade"?? can't you construct a valid argument without resorting to silly hyperbole?
why not start by identifying those park ridge "residents" who now find themselves homeless after having lived in a house or apt. here in park ridge? why not take the lead in energizing this community to find ways to take care of "our own" homeless, and on more than a one-day a week basis?
great idea! but is there some reason we can't do both? we could do that AND allow the PRMA to feed the homeless, even!
do you think the daily town-to-town perp walk is a good thing?
until your wonderful-sounding plan above is implemented, it's all they've got. the people participating in it seem to think it's a good thing. or, at least, a better thing than whatever their alternatives are.
or you can continue to do little but take comfort in the self-deception that you are morally superior to the rest of us.
armchair psychoanalysis. not much better than the ad hominem we saw above.
See the problem here is a matter of "community" on one hand you have a group of people who want to focus mainly on the Park Ridge community. On the other hand you have Churches. They have a different idea of what community is and it goes well beyond Park Ridge. Just as I am sure there there are church members who go to SPC who are from outside PR, they want to "serve" people outside of PR. If someone is hungry and a "resident" of Edison Park or Des Plaines (etc) they want to feed them too. I don't know if you notice but this feed the hungry thing is in most of their mission statements.
If only the founders of PR would have had the wisdon to outlaw organized religion.....wait a minute, they couldn't do that!!
no, they can't. but they *can* just pass zoning laws that effectively handcuff the churches within an inch of their lives.
can't have those nasty churches doing their nasty good works in our town. no, sirree! think of the children!
Right. Churches having to consider issues beyond their very recently adopted latest do gooder cause is handcuffing them within inches of their lives?
Get real, "genius" -- these church leaders are just pissed off that the rest of the town doesn't roll over and beg for more every time one of the self posessed reverends blows their nose.
right. 'cause helping poor people is a brand-new concept within the church.
and church officials just do it to feed their enormous egos.
you nailed it, PRU.
We often nail it. Thanks.
It sure seems new to the current crop of church leaders in this town.
Back in the 80's, when this issue was at its height, where were these local church leaders? What discussions took place on this issue? What efforts did they make on this matter?
Where were they on this issue only 5 years ago?
This is nothing but garbage from the PRMA and the PADS scammers.
O.K.Genius, answer me this,
Why do those who seem to believe that doing a "good thing" whatever that may be, means that it NEEDS to be foysted on to the entire community. Wouldn't you agree that we all don't share the same ideas of what doing "something" might be?
Futher more, why do those same people feel the need to judge those who don't agree in such a negative way. I mean really, finger shaking, name calling and condemning people to hell, and you all justify this bad behavior because you feel you have a just cause and that somehow excuses you.
Just remember this, the very God whos word you claim to be hiding behind when you judge others harshly has a watchful eye on you as well. In the end you too will be judged.
People disagree, and for whatever reason, I'm sure they believe in theirs just as you believe in yours. It however does NOT give you the right to impose what you may believe onto anyone else, nor does it give you the right to make your cause, anyone eles. What you have failed to see is when you take on a monumental project like addressing the homeless, you can't REQUIRE and entire community to take on your feel good project and that is exactly what happens. Your feel good one day a week ticket to the pearly gates inevitability spills out to the rest of the community to clean up, and quite frankly I see pleanty of folks in town who'd rather not clean up your mess.
yes, "genius," we surely can help feed *some* of them, and even shelter them, too - just get out there and start with the ones who actually belong here because they lived here at the time they became homeless.
that shouldn't be so tough, since you all keep insisting that there are a lot of park ridge homeless? why do you keep on insisting on importing homeless from other towns miles and miles away for one night on a cot, just to kick them out the next day? sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
why not take care of all of the native park ridge homeless by giving them shelter on a 24/7/52 basis? why do you all keep insisting on being "christian" only one night a week from october to april?
as for "lured," that's no "hyperbole," that's the pads model - lure the homeless from one town to another with the offer of a cot in a gym for a night. or, in the newest installment of the prma above-the-law project, a sunday night meal.
and by the way "genius," if you tell us how many homeless you've put up in your own house/apt. since october, and supply proof, i'll give you a parade myself.
May I ask is the food pantry at SPC an "above-the-law" project?
Why do those who seem to believe that doing a "good thing" whatever that may be, means that it NEEDS to be foysted on to the entire community.
by this definition, doing anything in any specific locale is "foisting it on the entire community". that's silly.
again, it goes right back to NIMBY.
when you take on a monumental project like addressing the homeless, you can't REQUIRE and entire community to take on your feel good project
this is classic. so, according to you, nobody can basically do anything in any community. right? or else they're--by your ridiculous stretch--REQUIRING the entire community to take on the project as well.
and since an entire community will never, ever agree on anything, that means that no one can ever do anything.
nice logic there.
quite frankly I see pleanty of folks in town who'd rather not clean up your mess.
our society's homelessness problem is everyone's mess. you can turn your head away from it as you leave your heated car and enter your heated garage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
start with the ones who actually belong here because they lived here at the time they became homeless.
why's that the criteria? my world doesn't end at the PR borders. and how would one go about determining PR "citizenship" among the homeless?
why not take care of all of the native park ridge homeless by giving them shelter on a 24/7/52 basis? why do you all keep insisting on being "christian" only one night a week from october to april?
or we could do both. they're not mutually exclusive.
but you're not actually interested in doing either. what you're doing is tossing out a much more difficult, highly-unlikely to ever happen alternative, to avoid discussing the actual issue at hand. lame diversion.
if you tell us how many homeless you've put up in your own house/apt. since october, and supply proof, i'll give you a parade myself.
i don't want a parade, so i'll pass. but why is that even important? is there some standard i have to meet in order to support a church's endeavor to help homeless or hungry people?
again, you're simply resorting to silly straw man arguments and diversion tactics.
i'm thinking that's because the argument you're attempting to make is bankrupt.
if it weren't, you'd be able to make your points logically and rationally, instead of resorting to all this personal crap and logical fallacy.
please do keep posting. you're doing an excellent job of representing the detractors of this effort. it's probably just about time to call me a name or imply that i'm stupid or on "meds" or something too.
for those that keep suggesting that people who support PADS should "take homeless people into your own homes", i have a question:
wouldn't you still have the same problem with that? isn't the main objection to PADS the fact that all these homeless people will be brought into town and "the kids" might be exposed to some danger as a result?
why would taking them into my home be any different?
as far as i can see--it wouldn't. they'll still be here. and i live in a residential neighborhood with children around.
can anyone help me make sense of this apparent contradiction?
Thank you "genius" for your posts on this issue and your persistence. I read the posts from the "anti-PADS/anti help anyone but myself group or people like me" and I shake my head. Despite what they post or say, the message these anti-pads people is simply that they do not want anyone-homeless or otherwise-they think is not worthy of being present in the uppity Park Ridge community they are creating. Driving out the PADS program really put a large black mark on this town. Now these same people would begrudge a church or community of people the ability to provide a dinner to people one night per week. Amazingly small of them.
What about the dinners we go to at Maine South for awards nights? Or the dinners the churches have for their congregations? Or scout dinners? These would seem to me to be in the same category. These dinner events must also then be regulated. And how will you regulate these events?
The only people who should be on meds are those hatefilled people who would deny a helping hand to some one in need, even when it involves no effort on their part at all.
genius: As far as an apparant contradiction, consider this:
You can babysit the child of a friend or neighbor in your house on weekdays and the city/community shouldnt have a problem. So you do that, but now youre going to advertise and take in 20 kids and do this 5 days a week. Think the city cant regulate you? They can and should and with good reason!
The idea of taking in ONE homeless person into your home and others doing the same does not contradict the idea that doing the same thing for a large group would then need to be regulated. It is in the best interest of the group in question as well as the rest of the community.
There wouldnt be "all these homeless people", there would be one in each host's house. Much like a new neighbor in the area, there would be some building of trust on both sides.
Also, if something happens and your guest does anything deemed unacceptable, YOU are the point person that could then be held accountable. You have the roots in the community. Even if its just your neighbor being picky about some trivial matter, there is no doubt about who to talk to: YOU! Not some out-of-town 3rd party.
The community would expect the host (as a resident of the community) to be mindful of the neighbors and they could express this to the guest.
The only contradiction that I got out of the whole PADS ordeal is that once PADS announced that they wouldnt pursue any PR site, the PRMA also announced that they wouldnt do it without PADS. PERIOD!
So what happened to the huge need to house the homeless??? PRMA is a part of this community and identifies with the community( just look at the first half of their name)
An outside entity (like PADS) has no ties to the community and may not feel the need to respect anything in it, so let's declare them the ONLY group that is acceptable to do it! AND they get to do it without putting their name to any license or anything declaring them responsible for the operation...
So the deal was: PADS can come in from elsewhere, bring in clients from elsewhere (mostly if not all), use their own policies/methods of choosing clients with no local say, rely on PRMA for the facilities, rely on community services such as police/fire/emergency while not paying any taxes, AND receive govt funding for the privilege...but apparantly putting their name to paper to be held accountable for it was a deal breaker???
We can do better and we should!
And lastly, dont automatically think that anti-PADS means anti-homeless. A lot of what people are saying is that PADS is not the preferred way to deal with the homeless situation. Maybe cutting out the PADS middleman and getting some real solutions to the problems would make more sense.
Leaving it up to PADS to do it for us is "the nonsensical copout"!
Anonymous January 6, 2009 8:22 PM
If Park Ridge is so "uppity" why do you live here? YOu do live here, don't you?
But you've unwittingly come up with a great idea to show just how committed the entire Park Ridge community is to taking care of homeless from other communities with your comment: "What about the dinners we go to at Maine South for awards nights? Or the dinners the churches have for their congregations? Or scout dinners? These would seem to me to be in the same category. These dinner events must also then be regulated. And how will you regulate these events?"
GREAT! Let's open up the breakfasts, luncheons, dinners and banquets of all commmunity organizations to the homeless!
Hey, Fr. Morello, you've got your "Festa" coming up couple of months. How about starting to advertise now about a "Homeless Eat For Free!" deal?
And Mayor Frimark and your Park Ridge Rotary buddies - start hanging out the "Homeless Welcome" banner on Summit Square during your weekly breakfast and luncheon meetings!
And let's not forget setting an example for our children - by inviting the homeless to events like the Maine East and Maine South athletic awards banquets. Wouldn't it be great for our high school athletes and their parents to be sharing the mostoccioli and applauding together politely for the winner of the "Team Spirit Award"?
And let's not forget the Chamber of Commerce's January 24 Installation and Awards Dinner at the Park Ridge Country Club - what better way for our business leaders to show their solidarity with people who (as we're being told) may have been just like them only a short time ago, before they got down on their luck!
Great, great idea! Fr. Carl, can we put you down for FESTA? Mayor Frimark, will you donate the banner for Summit Square?
Genius,
I applaud your efforts, however, still missing the big picture, and I'm wondering if they teach the art of acting obtuse along with niavev 101.
This is in fact the real world we all live in, and bad things happen from time to time. Particularly when dealing in human nature. Always expect the unexpected. So why is it that you still insist that simply because as a community, along with wanting to help, we also shouldn't want to exercise a little caution?
You still want to insist that this is strictly a "keep out" argument, when quite simply it's a be careful thing. Our daily life is packed with rules to follow and laws to abide. Do you know why? Because without them there would be chaos!
Asking that there be rules and regulations for a shelter, and anyone who designs a program, guaratees a program, and personally profits from a program, should also be held to particualr standards and held accountable for whatever may occure while practicing in this program, just makes good sense.
Pretending that bads things won't happen then praying after they do, exhibits lack of reality. Open up your mind for a moment and just consider the idea that designed rules, regulations, and laws are intended to be in the best interest, provide safety, and keep peace FOR ALL! Good intentions doesn't exempt you from this concept. Just remember what they say about "good intentions"....
anon 1:37:
I understand what you are saying but here is what confuses me.
If it is just all about PADS as you seem to thing, then why is there all these objections to a soup kitchen? Maybe I am misreading this but I can the EXACT same divisions as with the PADS argument related to the subject of a soup kitchen. Those who were against a PADS site in PR are going to be against the "soup kitchen", yet PADS is not involved in any way at all. I guess what I am asking is that while I appreciate all your points about PADS (and agree with some of them) what is your argument against a "soup kitchen"?
For those who are against these things the argument is rather simple. All you have to do is keep shooting holes in the all of the proposals. That is always going to be easy to do because there is no perfect solution.
As an example, the Salvation Army has been around for a long time and helped many thousands of people but you or I could easily rip their business model. We could use many of the same arguments that we have used against PADS.
you got it. it's only all about PADS when PADS is trying to do something.
as seen by the blog entry that started this, as soon as someone else makes an effort to do something, the focus shifts. now it's about the evil PRMA.
all these people with their great plans for helping the homeless....where were you before PADS threatened to come to town? where are you now that PADS isn't coming?
this seems to be the m.o. talk about all the other worthwhile ways that the homeless can be helped (but do nothing to get them done) while shooting down any and every effort that anyone is actually trying to bring to fruition.
there are a lot of people in PR who wholeheartedly support helping homeless people *in a theoretical sense*.
but as soon as theoretical threatens to become real, the chicken-little cries of "the kids", "bad things might happen", and "use of tax-payer funded city services" start to emerge.
Okay, Genius, back atcha: Where have you been re the homeless until now - or until PADS wanted to extend its traveling flim-flam show franchise to Park Ridge?
Anonymous January 7, 2009 8:49 am
Yes I do live here and have lived here for a very long time. When we moved here there were not so many people in town so full of there own virtue and self importance that they refuse to help those less fortunate by letting them sleep overnight on private church owned property. Where did you all come from?
http://www.spc-parish.net/Sunday%20Night%20Suppers.htm
This is from the SPC Parish Web Site.
THe problem with the announcement is that SPC and Fr. Carl and PRMA are completely aware that the PADS program was faltered from the beginning from lack of or no communication and somewhat misleading information. It would have fared better for them to be more open about it and communicated the soup kitchen idea more.
In addition, the surprised piece is the overnight lock in services that blatantly are a way for the PRMA to try to get around the idea of a shelter and regulation issues.
I do hope PR follows this closely as well as the adherance to public policies and regulations that are in place.
Didn't Ald. Ryan make a statement at one of the past PADS council meetings about how he wonderes why we can't just trust the PRMA and that he jsut trusts them - well this is why - because now they are trying to go unregulated by presenting the homeless overnight vigil as an in your face against the regulations.
I will tell you many parishioners did not know about this because we stopped attending services there and have been going elsewhere as still feeling disconnected and not a part of the SPC community any longer. Many of us still don't feel what we once loved about the parish - we were called names, nasty names like bigots from our pastor with still no indication of an apology - and MY daughter is making HER reconciliation this year!?!? Name calling being one of the suggested sins you confess...
There has been no attempt at healingthe parish from the divisiveness of what happened with PADS - and I am sure they can still see that in collections and in participation at events etc...
anon 12:19:
It is clear there is a dramatic divergence between you and your parish on (and as a result of) this issue.
Perhaps both of you will benefit from this seperation.
Best of Luck!!
Anon@12:41 --
You are an asshat.
PRU:
Apparently it is a name that will stick!!
I am all for parishoners who do not agree with a position/tenet of what ever their choosen organized religion leaving. While I can understand that it might be a difficult decision, I cannot understand why they would stay. Perhaps it is the sense of community, although that seems to be working out real well at SPC. It is ironic when those on both sides of this issue within a congregation end up in a shouting match. They may have to install revolving doors on the confessionals.
If the expectation is that somehow the church, especially the catholic church is going to change their position - good luck with that.
Where have you been re the homeless until now - or until PADS wanted to extend its traveling flim-flam show franchise to Park Ridge?
thanks for asking! i'm fairly active in homeless/hunger charities. i work in the hospitality industry and do a lot of volunteer work with organizations such as meals on wheels and the greater chicago food depository.
i kind of stayed out of the whole PADS issue, as it became so controversial so quickly. i don't attend church, so didn't feel i had a dog in the fight.
i'm not sure why i even bother to answer, because no matter what i say, it won't be good enough to escape the criticism from those who disagree with my opinions on this issue.
i repeat--the amount of personal time/money/effort i donate to helping the homeless has *zero* to do with my support for the church's efforts to feed hungry people, and *zero* impact on the logic and validity of the arguments i'm making.
but, again...please do continue with the personal slams. it only harms your position.
I appreciate this blog for so many reasons, generally I try to be here only as a reader and not as a poster.
That being said:
the willful ignorance and petulance of anyone mocking the anti-pads set is so tedious, so weak, so hypocritical, that I, for one, cannot believe their garbagespeak keeps being spoken, here or anywhere.
The information about the suppers appeared in last weekend's bulletin, true, but it appeared at St Luke's well before that. Even with all Morello's protestations about his habitual poor handling of info being accidental or incidental, SPC people found out through the grapevine, not in a forthright or honest manner from the pastor or any other priest or other. There was only a little blurb re- the matter being 'under consideration.' That's it.
We all now know that any 'homeless or hungry' discussion is doubletalk for all things PADS.
Let me get in line to beat the dead cat, as somehow people still do not get it. PADS is a holy nightmare, the obvious reason for pulling out of PR after licensure was required of them is that pulling back the curtain on that organization is like water to the wicked witch or daylight to a vampire. Candor kills their cause, period. Any semblance of good they might do is undercut and wholly negated by the way they do business and canyons-not-cracks in their security measures.
The 'concerned parents' did the research, took hit after hit about being anti-christian, un-christian, life haters, snobs, fear mongers et al. Here's a few for you PADS lovers - pollyanas, flakes, pretenders, do-nothings, lemmings.
Is there possibly someone out there that doesn't know that the weekly Sunday Supper is intended precisely for the PADS crowd? It's nothing short of a huge vafanculo for SPC parents- and their kids- for their past opposition to Morello's pet cause. There is NOTHING to compel or require the PRMA to host homeless dinners in the SPC gym - no spacial or zoning needs that cannot be met elsewhere -e.g., another church where young children will not be in class 12 hrs later. That the do-gooders' noble cause devolved into a pissing match speaks volumes. This supper gig is all about spite. Spite me til the cows come home, fine, go for it. Spite my kids? Really? That's the WWJD spirit. Help the dregs, spite the kids. Got it.
PADS lovers, do some homework. My guess is you have never had your safety threatened. You should try it sometime, then decide if 5,6,7 year olds should be put at that risk... my lifelong pal, a physician at Hines VA, heard about this homeless-in-school obsession in Park Ridge, guffawed, then asked, "Are they OUT of their MINDS?! Do they HAVE minds?!" then confirmed one of the uglier details about the kahoots-ism surrounding PADS, their half-truths and policy of lying by omission, practices so adeptly employed now by Morello. At Hines they routinely - that is to say, as a matter of routine -discharge homeless sex offeners, many of them untreatable addicts, directly into the care of PADS. Not seldom, not sometimes, not every now and then -- as a matter of regular course, no big thing.
There is simply nothing to defend the practice of importing such persons into a facility specifically intended for the care of children, whether overnight or for one meal. Precepts of organized religion and Jesusness are totally irrelevant- it's literally indefensible to voluntarily throw children into this mix, especially when other facilities are available to support the supper-practice. SPC clergy and administration has consistently shown contempt for the children it is in business to educate and protect. This, plus contempt and spite from my supposed moral guide? I literally can't take it anymore; you can stuff your sanctimony.
The greatest hypocrites among us are the ones who keep throwing NIMBY around as a silencer. NIMBY? Damn straight, NIMBY! Perfect, absolutely right! Certain activities should not take place in certain places. I would not send my children to school in a homeless shelter. I would not live next to a prison, crematorium, adult bookstore or a nuclear plant, either. Would you, NIMBY-tossers? What drew you to PR? The rough and tumble nature of it? All the hit-the-skids types afoot?
Please.
Still can't see it can ya genius?
You almost had it, in you "use of taxpayer funds" statement. YOUR CHOICE of charity YOUR feel good cause du jour, our money. What on earth makes you think you have the right to decide what we spend OUR money on, or which charity or cause we may choose? Just because it's not the one YOU choose, doesn't make us bad people or wrong for that matter, just different. You just want YOUR choice to be EVERYONES choice. Guess what IT"S NOT!!!!!!! Get over it.You don't get to make choices for an entire community, you just don't!! And if anyone disagrees you don't get to slam them. Free will baby, can't mess with it, can't guilt 'em into it can't change it. MOVE ON!!!!!
NIMBY? Damn straight, NIMBY! Perfect, absolutely right! Certain activities should not take place in certain places.
thanks for your candor. at least one person in here has the stones to admit it.
so, tell us, then...if not in your backyard, where should this kind of thing take place? because, i'm sure you realize that everywhere is *someone's* backyard. right?
so? in whose backyard should the homeless take shelter or have a meal?
Wherever the community at large is willing to be suckered into the PADS scam without holding their local officials and local religious leaders accountable for the programs, nor demanding that oversight and regulations are instituted -- that would appear to take Park Ridge off the table.
Works for us.
Anon@9:35: In answer to your post, I do think you are misreading things.
I know for a FACT that the opposition to the soup kitchen is not the "EXACT same divisions as with the PADS argument." I can say that because I know some (myself included) that do not oppose a soup kitchen. (I do however oppose a shelter disguised as a soup kitchen: lets call it soup kitchen+.)
And probably not to the extent as "genius", I too choose to give donations (monetary and otherwise) to needy organizations of my choice.
As I stated in my earlier post, one should not translate anti-PADS into anti-homeless. I dont want them to "stay out" (BTW thanks to "genius" for telling me my wishes but this should serve as your notice to stop trying to put words into my mouth). I was all for compromise if PADS had agreed to put their name to paper. I originally wanted to compromise and maybe do a Friday or Saturday in SPC gym if needed. But PADS proved that it was to be their way or the highway. (In case you hadnt noticed, they chose highway) The way they left only confirmed suspicions about the type of organization they are. (They took their ball-y and went home.)
Now its a proposed soup kitchen. Fine. Oh and soup and all-night vigil...But if they really want to house some overnight guests, why dont they apply to be a shelter? Get a license. Do it. The city has paved the way for that process.
But stop trying to skirt around and play it off like a "kitchen + vigil" so we dont have to go through the proper channels.
In case most of the city missed it, the whole PADS ordeal was to ALLOW a shelter. It was previously AGAINST THE LAW. Many on the supposed "anti-PADS" side only wanted to see to it that adequate regulation was put in place for it to happen. (Of course there were others who yelled "get out" at the meetings, but please dont lump us all together)
So now they're allowed to do it and after all the fighting, they dont want to take advantage of the fruits of their labor: a lawful way to run a regulated shelter. (Because that is what came out of it.)
Apparantly it was too much to ask. But the compromise came mostly from this side (see there now: a shelter CAN be opened and operated, both WHERE and WHEN they wanted) and I still hear the remarks or snide comments that it was all a "get out and stay out" thing.
You are mistaken.
"genius": isnt that what was proposed previously? YOUR backyard would be fine. That was the whole point of the "one household take in one homeless guest" scenario. You would be allowed to do your mission as you see fit but not impose on those who dont want to help.
As has been previously stated: This is a free country. Of course with the stipulation that your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose...
Anon 6:15:
May I ask where does the all night vigil thing come from? I am not trying to be an "ass-hat". Clearly many here are in on inside information that is not available to me. I guess I just don't hang out with the right people.
As I previously posted, I agree that if this is nothing more then a way to have 20 homeless people spend the night then that is a clear violation of a matter already decided here in Park Ridge.
If you are fine with a soup kitchen is it not possible that that is what they are trying to do? There is now a defined path they must follow if they want to open a shelter. If the city sees that it has become more of a shelter then a soup kitchen I would think they would close it down.
If your are for a soup kitchen that is fine but I think there are a lot of people who are not. What tends to happen in arguments is people pick the point that is gernerally most beneficial to their case and other things are overlooked. With PADS it was about the organization and school kids. But ask your self this. If they open a soup kitchen it would appear year round, right?. Let's say you are wrong about the whole vigil thing. So let's say it's June and it's 80 degrees and 50 people come to the soup kitchen, have their meal and leave the church. THere are going to be a certain percentage of those people that fit into the catagory that caused all this concern about kids and the school. Based on what you have seen in this whole debate, do you really think that a person who has been against PADS is going to be OK with the above senario????? If you were honest about being OK with a soup kitchen but against PADS then I have a "gut feel" that you are a rare bird.
A big focus of the PADS/SPC debacle was the the process. Staying overnight and how you clean up when the kids get there so soon after the shleter closes and will they hang around the school after the shelter closes. The subtext of this whole thing that a only a very few have touched on is not wanting "them here, period".
Just one mans opinion.
One more question came to me. Let's just say that 30 member families of PRMA churches all volunteered to take 30 homeless people into their homes. I know what your thinking - it will NEVER happen!! Of course your are right but work with me here. Do you really think everyone is going to be OK with that?? Are we not back to the above mentioned subtext?
Anon@7:20 --
Yes, we are o.k. with that.
No, we are not back to your subtext.
i completely 100% do NOT believe that you would be more willing to allow park ridge families take in homeless people as permanent residents, when there is the option of a regulated homeless shelter. that is a lot of responsibility, and there is a reason there are groups such as PADS to address the problems of homelessness. would you help your homeless resident find a job? how would you feel about having the person interact with your children, since that is your concern? what if the person did have some kind of drug problem or mental illness and subsequently robbed your house and ran away? i may be totally mistaken, however, and you may be saying that you guys would be ok with having OTHER people in PR take homeless people into their homes, but you yourselves would not. in that case, you are asking those people to shoulder all of the responsibilities of helping these people, rather than sharing the burden in a community homeless shelter where anyone could help out and volunteer. it is in fact quite sickening that you are willing to throw the burden on those of PR that want to help the homeless (and you all are saying there should not be this distinction between those who do and those who dont, but i do not think that you would be one of those 30 families to take in a homeless person) and then passing this off as your "better-than-PADS" plan of "not carting the homeless from one place to another but instead offering them a permanent home."
also, there was one person on here who claimed that having a homeless person in someone's home would make a problem more easy to address. then, there was another person talking about how regulation is good and laws are created to "avoid chaos." these two things directly contradict one another. as the second person said, there is a reason that there are laws and regulations. there is a reason there are organizations to help address the large and multi-faceted problems of homelessness.
you better stop with that logic and valid point-making. you're liable to get screamed at and accused of being "off your meds".
all these people who keep saying they'd be just a-ok with a neighbor taking in homeless people are 100% full of crap. full stop.
they're only saying they're ok with it because they see it as far less likely to be suggested than an organized shelter.
and because saying they don't want anyone to help homeless people anywhere in PR would make them selfish boors.
sorry. would make it clear that they are selfish boors.
thank you, genius.
the fact is, these people may want to help the homeless, but not in park ridge. they have taken the NIMBY argument to the illogical extreme, telling people to take the homeless into their own homes, their own backyards. and yet, st. paul's gym and church apparently fall into the category of "their" backyard and cannot be allowed to house the homeless. yes, these people go to st. paul's church; yes, they drop their kids off at that gym; but, homeless people living on your block essentially (and probably more essentially) presents the same risks as homeless people spending a night at SPC. in short, these people called for regulation, and a homeless shelter provides a whole lot more regulation than a bunch of homeless people dispersed in various houses throughout park ridge. everywhere in park ridge can be called "our backyard." kids play at their friends' houses, kids roam around the neighborhood, etc. etc. the argument of telling the people who want to help the homeless to take them into their own homes is ridiculous. and you read my mind, genius, they are saying this because it is FAR LESS likely to ever happen than a regulated homeless shelter. it is pretty telling that PADS has never encountered such opposition as this in any other suburb it has worked with...
however, these people use the argument that PADS is not a trustworthy organization etc. etc. to me, this seems like simply a shield to hide their real problems with a homeless shelter in park ridge...
i really want to know, which came first: the opposition to PADS or the opposition to a homeless shelter? scenario: a homeless shelter is proposed in park ridge. gut reaction: a homeless shelter in park ridge sounds like a scary idea. after further thinking: lets tear down PADS' organizational model and call for regulation because we are really just scared of a homeless shelter...
anyways, i dont really know why im doing this, it will just fall on deaf ears, and nobody likes an exercise in futility.
Anon@5:00 --
To answer your question, it was opposition to a homeless shelter being placed in a densely residential neighborhood that first arose.
You see, PADS attempted to remain in the shadows while the issue was being floated among the privileged inside crowd of flock faithful. Even though Beth Nabors had reared her ugly head at a Fair Housing meeting prior to St. Mary's breathing a word about their new intended use for the space that have available after giving Christies Carousel of Learning the heave-ho.
Now it's your turn to answer a question. If PADS is such a great organization with such a great track record -- why is it that the moment it appeared PADS would be allowed to open a homeless shelter in the SPC school gym, on the night they preferred, with the stipulation that PADS would be subject to licensing and regulation, PADS turned and ran?
PRU,
Maybe instead of an essay question you should have made it multiple choice?
A. PADS is a scam that didn't want to be exposed.
B. The people running PADS are scammers who didn't want to be exposed.
C. PADS doesn't have a great track record.
D. All of the above
Anonymous --
It looks as if you are not familiar with our general blog rules -- no libel, no bullshit.
In your case the rule you've broken is no bullshit.
Either answer the question and save the propaganda, or your comments won't be posted.
Don't like our rules? Don't read our blog.
This whole PADS thing is like picking at a scab. I never thought they were "such a great organization" but I guess my opinion was more tempered then some because I looked them as dealing with an imperfect client group. What ever the hell we thought of PADS they are gone.
It seems to me the topic of the day is the soon to be open "soup kitchen" at SPC. PADS is not involved in any way. I have to believe (or hope) that if it turns into more of a shelter then a soup kitchen they will be required to follow the guidelines or be shut down.
So lets get down to the objections to a soup kitchen.
I agree 6:21
What we are talking about is a soup kitchen. It seems that the bunch of sour grapes still can't get over the shelter being pulled out from under their feet by their own beloved PADS. Not really the issue here.
I supose the reason also that this came up is because what the PRMA is advertising is not let's feed the hungry, come join us for a meal. What they said was "if you are hungry or HOMELESS." This is why I'm sure the hair was standing up on the back of peoples necks.
Given the track record of the PRMA, this is not without reason.
In response to Anon, even a regulated shelter seems unlikely due to the fact that PADS refuses to comly with simple zoning and a license. To question why at this point is mute, who gives a hoot.
Heed this advise though, if by trying on a soup kitchen for size to be able to come back to the city council in a few months to give testimony on how well things have worked out and argue that these regulations are unnessessary, you can save your breath. It's a good effort, but a waisted one. We are on to you.
Anon@127, genius@404, & Anon@500:
Its funny how the "logic and valid points" are all statements of what someone else thinks or feels with a couple of "I may be wrong" or I may be mistaken" phrases thrown in.
You are and you are.
And as for any contradiction you may find in being ok with a single household helping a single person and opposition to an organization bringing in multiple occupants, you are missing the point of "regulation". The "regulator" would be YOU and not the city, PADS, church, etc. And your neighbors would entrust YOU with responsibility. Not some faceless out-of-town organization...and they KNOW YOU...and there is no law against it.
So again, "genius" dont spread so-called facts about others being "full of crap"...you should speak for yourself...
But back to the concern of homeless in the neighborhood, consorting with the children: Dont think for a second that I let my children consort with just anyone that comes around. It took many years of being familiar with neighbors before I would allow my children to interact without my being present. And some neighbors still have not gained that trust. The people I choose to have my children interact with is a short list and would not immediately include any new neighbors whether they were homeless or bought the McMansion across the street!!!!
Im not having the new neighbors that just moved in last month baby-sitting for my kids either!
But if they did "join" the neighborhood, you don't think that they would eventually gain acceptance with a few? They should...
Even in normal "new neighbor" circumstances, there is a sort of "probation" period before people open up to one another. What makes you think that someone riding the train into town once a week and staying for 12 hours should gain the same amount of trust in the community than someone who actually tries to become a part of it.
And if my neighbor "had a drug problem, mental illness, and robbed my house" I wouldnt like it either, but it would be a lot harder for them to skip town!
"Knowing where you live" goes a long way towards establishing trust...
Oh and throwing the "burden of helping the homeless" on "those who want to" is not as sickening as trying to foist it on those who dont. I would NOT be one of the hosts. I have no problem saying that. But I would not stop my neighbors from hosting someone. I would however stop my neighbor from doing "hosting" the homeless in my garage. I dont let them park in my driveway or pick from my garden either...But I will shovel my elderly neighbor's walk and I LOATHE my neighbor up the block who insists that snowblowing into the street is his right!
NOT ALL MY NEIGHBORS ARE TRUSTWORTHY...
But I understand that you may be saying that you may not want to do it all but contribute where you can. But leaving it to the "new guy" from outta town isnt the answer. But since they are now out of the picture, where are the in-town organizations? They only have to apply for a permit...
Hmmmmmm...will anyone take responsibility????
Why can't those who make these decisions inderstand that it is the location that some object to not the service. Why not hold the supper in the Kinane Center and then invite those to the chapel (which is open 24/7 right now) for reflection or prayers or just to stay warm. Another area is Duffin Hall which has a seperate entrance and the Church is close by for the evening reflection/ prayer.
anon 2:07 PM:
I have to admit that I did not recognize the suggested locations in your post. It was only after doing some googling that I found that these rooms/halls are a part of SPC.
If you really thing that having a shelter, or in this case a soup kitchen in a different part of the SPC "campus" is going to solve the objections then I say go for it!! All this controversy and here you had the answer all along. I am sure Father Carl and the PRMA will be thrilled that you have come up with a solution.
By the way, I think your analysis of the issue is DEAD WRONG - but good luck!!!!
Oh and throwing the "burden of helping the homeless" on "those who want to" is not as sickening as trying to foist it on those who dont. I would NOT be one of the hosts. I have no problem saying that. But I would not stop my neighbors from hosting someone. I would however stop my neighbor from doing "hosting" the homeless in my garage.
this makes zero sense. unless, of course, you consider SPC to be "your garage".
by stopping a church from hosting, you are doing precisely what you claim you wouldn't do; stopping your neighbor from hosting the homeless.
Why can't those who make these decisions inderstand that it is the location that some object to not the service.
because as soon as they change the suggested location, loonies like the guy i quoted above will just start objecting to that location. it's not the location, it's the service. it's the presence of homeless people in PR, as evidenced by the post above by the guy who thinks hosting the homeless in SPC is the exact same thing as letting them sleep in his garage...the guy who claims to be able to exert total control over who his children associate with, but is scared senseless of allowing a few homeless people to pass through town one night a week.
So I had a chance to watch parts of the prayer service at the National Cathedral this morning. I have to admit that I enjoyed it. Maybe it is because I have not been to a church service in 15+ years, with the exception of weddings and funerals. I also have to admit that I am not even sure what denomination it was - I do not think it was Catholic.
I came in in the middle so I do not have an official count, but Jesus did they mention the homeless and the hungry a lot!!!!
Here we are with the newly elected President, VP and virtually all of congress listening to lines like, "we cannot be truely rich while there are poor and hungry". What is to become of us??
I would recommend that anyone and everyone take the time to view it. It has to be on youtube. Whether you agree or not, it gives a snap-shot not only of what most organized religions feel but also of what many of our elected officials feel (including the leader of the free world). It is what I would call truth in advertising.
Post a Comment