nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Opening churches for the homeless?

FutureGuy

Will put it out in the open. I'm an atheist but I would like to understand something.

There's a mosque in Dublin opening its doors to the homeless during the upcoming cold snap. This is sure to save lives.

Why isn't the Catholic Church doing the same with its churches? These people are at risk of dying and yet the church does nothing. It's not for want of space or money so why not? Why aren't mass-goers asking their local priest the question?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

c_man

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

ONE mosque is not the Muslim comunity.

No, I was told it was an events centre and not a Mosque. As though that meant something.

Stheno

c_man wrote: »

No idea, compounded by me not being sure what you mean by events centre either. Is a small "tea" hall with a single toilet an events centre? The kind that host weekly AA, GA, NA etc etc meetings?

Now that I've answered your question, maybe you can answer mine in that bit you've quoted?

I've no idea tbh but don't know of many churches with separate event centres such as they have.

The centre in Clonskeagh is not just a mosque they have several other buildings one of which they are opening

c_man

Stheno wrote: »

I've no idea tbh but don't know of many churches with separate event centres such as they have.

The centre in Clonskeagh is not just a mosque they have several other buildings one of which they are opening

*shrug* So you're not going to answer my question then? These posts seem pretty aimless tbh.

beauf

c_man wrote: »

So if one mosque == the Muslim community, do the huge number of Catholic homeless services, charities and shelters not == the Catholic community?

What's the line of thinking here?

Maybe english isn't their first language?

FutureGuy

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm guessing this is just the usual antagonistic, irritating atheist ready to bash the church at any opportunity. You realize that the church does huge amounts of work for the poor - more, dare I say it, than you. Do you take in homeless people when it's cold?

Have I in any way been antagonistic? I have asked a very reasonable question based on a news story over the last day. I asked it directly to members of the Catholic Church here on boards in the hope of having a good discussion rather than on After Hours. I am asking a question specifically relating to the use of churches at a time when homeless was people are likely to freeze.

You're the third of fourth person to ask if I have taken in homeless people. If I said I have done in the past, would you believe me?

Regardless, I don't have hundreds of large warm buildings at my disposal and lots of money. And yes, I'm sure a religious organisation with billions of followers would, as a group, have done more charity work than I, a single human being. Sorry, but that's a silly post.

beauf

FutureGuy wrote: »

Have I in any way been antagonistic? I have asked a very reasonable question based on a news story over the last day. I asked it directly to members of the Catholic Church here on boards in the hope of having a good discussion rather than on After Hours. I am asking a question specifically relating to the use of churches at a time when homeless was people are likely to freeze.

You're the third of fourth person to ask if I have taken in homeless people. If I said I have done in the past, would you believe me?

Regardless, I don't have hundreds of large warm buildings at my disposal and lots of money. And yes, I'm sure a religious organisation with billions of followers would, as a group, have done more charity work than I, a single human being. Sorry, but that's a silly post.

So lets be clear you think unsuitable churches are more suitable for the homeless than the existing homeless shelters and hostels provided by catholic organisations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-homeless-shelters-lack-privacy-says-peter-mcverry-1.2900191

c_man

beauf wrote: »

So lets be clear you think unsuitable churches are more suitable for the homeless than the existing homeless shelters and hostels provided by catholic organisations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-homeless-shelters-lack-privacy-says-peter-mcverry-1.2900191

I think you're being generous. They clearly have zero interest in actual facts on the matter.

Cork Lass

FutureGuy wrote: »

Ah yes, judge me without having a clue as to what I have or have not done in my life.

Well, one thing you’ve definitely not done is answer the question.

beauf

Cork Lass wrote: »

Well, one thing you’ve definitely not done is answer the question.

Hes not even asked a meaningful question.

Hes just confused the meaning of the word, church. He even got the bit about the Mosque wrong.

Mancomb Seepgood

More details are here: http://www.98fm.com/Clonskeagh-Mosque-To-Offer-Homeless-Shelter-During-Polar-Low

To summarise,the mosque has a large events hall,a security team,an onsite restaurant,and maintenance staff.You'd probably be hard pushed to find a city centre church with those facilities.

During Hurricane Ophelia,the Capuchin Centre stayed open for the duration to ensure that homeless people had somewhere to shelter.They may very well be doing the same this weekend.

beauf

FutureGuy wrote: »

Have I in any way been antagonistic? I have asked a very reasonable question.....

Yes. Why else ask a nonsensical question. Then insist on getting a reply, when you've already got replies.

You might aswell go into the Man City forum and ask why are they such a bad team.

Cork Lass

beauf wrote: »

Hes not even asked a meaningful question.

Hes just confused the meaning of the word, church. He even got the bit about the Mosque wrong.

Post #15. OP was asked if he’d opened his doors to the homeless.

c_man

Stupidest thread in the Christianity forum of the year perhaps?

FutureGuy

c_man wrote: »

Stupidest thread in the Christianity forum of the year perhaps?

Let me see. I ask a legit question and This is what I get....

Cork Lass wrote: »

Post #15. OP was asked if he’d opened his doors to the homeless.

beauf wrote: »

Yes. Why else ask a nonsensical question. Then insist on getting a reply, when you've already got replies.

You might aswell go into the Man City forum and ask why are they such a bad team.

Manach wrote: »

So nothing about the various Catholic charities or the various gate collections that funnel funds that benefit this and other causes? Then there is the practical problems of insurance etc. Perhaps the OP would care to lobby their local TD to open the Dail to the homeless.

wally79 wrote: »

Sure there are heated office blocks sitting empty every night why not open those up too?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Have you opened your doors to homeless people? I'd hate to think you are encouraging others to do something you aren't willing to do...

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

ONE mosque is not the Muslim comunity. As said earlier , they could do with a bit of good PR

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm guessing this is just the usual antagonistic, irritating atheist ready to bash the church at any opportunity. You realize that the church does huge amounts of work for the poor - more, dare I say it, than you. Do you take in homeless people when it's cold?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So?? Is he barred from taking people in to his house?

Cork Lass wrote: »

Well, one thing you’ve definitely not done is answer the question.

Yep. I have to agree with you there. Mods, feel free to close this up as I'm clearly not going to get the discussion I was hoping for.

I'm sure if I said I had taken in people or had donated hundreds to homeless charities, I'd be believed. But I'm sure the ones asking me the question have done it far more often and donated far more than I have.

eviltwin

FutureGuy wrote: »

I think people are pulling away from my original question. If a Muslim community can open their doors for the homeless, why can't the Catholic Church?

It's one group within the Muslim community, presumably they have made sure they legally can provide the help they are offering. Plenty of Catholic people and organisations are involved in helping the homeless. There are many ways to help besides opening a church.

EirWatchr

At a recent talk when Fr. McVerry was asked whether people should let the homeless into their home, he said it'd be a very stupid thing to do! It's because you have no idea what problems you'd be letting in. Homeless shelters are about getting to know the person in a safe environment for both, their back story, building relationships and trust, discovering their problems, and ultimately helping them to get out of their situation (if they want to). And all done under legal guidelines for suitable accomodation and safeguarding to protect both the homeless and volunteers.

There are several Catholic organizations designed to do just that (Peter McVerry Trust, Capuchin Day Center, SVP hostels, Crosscare hostels, Morning Star Hostel, and so on). You may not be as aware of their work as the ICC in Clonskeagh. If the problem is now so great it now needs support from all faiths (and none), thank God, I say, for the charity of the ICC.

Any of the above organizations could use your donations of money or time to help alleviate the problem.

beauf

FutureGuy wrote: »

...The question is why the Catholic Church does not open its doors for the homeless. ....

Actually your question was why don't they open their churches specifically.

The answer is because its a moronic idea.

Tenigate

FutureGuy wrote: »

Will put it out in the open. I'm an atheist but I would like to understand something.

How many homeless people have you housed? Have you thrown open your doors?

Do ya realise most churches are fairly cold damp buildings with nowhere to sleep? The one near where i live has one toilet which can only be accessed from outside. There's also a tap on the wall outside.
Only things that might interest a homeless individual are the bottles of wine and the silverware.

Tenigate

EirWatchr wrote: »

At a recent talk when Fr. McVerry was asked whether people should let the homeless into their home, he said it'd be a very stupid thing to do! It's because you have no idea what problems you'd be letting in.

Exhibit A:. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/03/homeless-man-admits-murdering-good-samaritan-mother-son-took/

teen mums who arent fortune enough to get a council houses, recent graduates living with their parents and not fortunate enough to get jobs, and winos and junkies .. they're all lumped together as homeless. You can open as many church buildings or free rooms in your house... The problem isn't homelessness.

Nick Park

Opening up a building for a temporary few days for the homeless sounds great, but ultimately the homeless need more.

They need an accommodation plan that gets them off the street long-term.
They need food on an ongoing basis.
They need clean clothes & sleeping bags.
They need affordable accommodation units.
They need advocates like Peter McVerry who will pressurise the government to do its job.

The Catholic Church is already doing all these things.

So, since the question was why aren't 'the Catholics' doing the same thing as one mosque, the answer is that the Catholics long ago learned to help the homeless in many more effective ways.

(BTW, I am not a Catholic, but I was homeless for three years. )

FutureGuy

Nick Park wrote: »

Opening up a building for a temporary few days for the homeless sounds great, but ultimately the homeless need more.

They need an accommodation plan that gets them off the street long-term.
They need food on an ongoing basis.
They need clean clothes & sleeping bags.
They need affordable accommodation units.
They need advocates like Peter McVerry who will pressurise the government to do its job.

The Catholic Church is already doing all these things.

So, since the question was why aren't 'the Catholics' doing the same thing as one mosque, the answer is that the Catholics long ago learned to help the homeless in many more effective ways.

(BTW, I am not a Catholic, but I was homeless for three years. )

Thanks for a well-structured and thoughtful post Nick and I am glad you gave your perspective.

I completely agree that the homeless need a long term solution and never once did I imply that the church should solve the problem as the the government have a crucial role to play.

I am referring to the immediate short term when there is a pending cold snap. While there are options for homeless people in our major towns and cities, the homeless in smaller areas have nowhere to turn. There are, however, churches in every town.

Would it be that much hassle to allow someone to sleep indoors on a small mattress bought for them? For that specific purpose - a short term area where they can stay during the extremely cold nights. Again, it is not a solution but it could save a life.

Peregrinus

Or it could conceivably cost lives. Churches aren't designed or constructed for this. We have planning codes and building regulations and laws about structures that are used for human habitation for a reason. People sleeping in a church and trying to keep warm may, for example, overload the wiring, or light fires in places where fires shouldn't be lit.

Plus, "opening a church" isn't simply a matter of leaving the doors unlocked. There needs to be supervision, there needs to be support. The Catholic church already has people working in this area, both volunteers and paid staff; are they to be pulled off the more effective projects that they are working on and diverted to this one?

If there's a need for emergency accommodation, we should be looking to expand existing, tried-and-tested models for providing it rather than trying to come up with new and worse models.

I don't intend to criticise the mosque here. They have limited resources, and opening their hall on this basis may be all they can do to alleviate the problem. But the Catholic church can do, and is already doing, and has for a long time been doing, much more effective things. If you want them to do more, you should want them to do more of those things.

beauf

FutureGuy wrote: »

....Would it be that much hassle to allow someone to sleep indoors on a small mattress bought for them? For that specific purpose - a short term area where they can stay during the extremely cold nights. Again, it is not a solution but it could save a life.

Maybe you could explain why you've picked probably the most unsuitable building to use as a emergency shelter, with unsuitable staff. Over organisations already in place.

https://twitter.com/PMVTrust/status/933789581404704768?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Delirium

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm guessing this is just the usual antagonistic, irritating atheist ready to bash the church at any opportunity. You realize that the church does huge amounts of work for the poor - more, dare I say it, than you. Do you take in homeless people when it's cold?

MOD NOTE

Less of the personal comments please.

Thanks for your attention.

DickSwiveller

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Less of the personal comments please.

Thanks for your attention.

I apologize.

CIARAN_BOYLE

FutureGuy wrote: »

Thanks for a well-structured and thoughtful post Nick and I am glad you gave your perspective.

I completely agree that the homeless need a long term solution and never once did I imply that the church should solve the problem as the the government have a crucial role to play.

I am referring to the immediate short term when there is a pending cold snap. While there are options for homeless people in our major towns and cities, the homeless in smaller areas have nowhere to turn. There are, however, churches in every town.

Would it be that much hassle to allow someone to sleep indoors on a small mattress bought for them? For that specific purpose - a short term area where they can stay during the extremely cold nights. Again, it is not a solution but it could save a life.

The Catholic church has often been targeted as an organisation that should provide and when it does provide it tends to be targeted for legal actions.

Anyway the Islamic Mosque and cultural centre in Clonskeagh is a wonderful facility and we should be greatful that it is being provided. There is shower facilities a restaurant and space. Hopefully this either fulfils whatever regulations are in place for providing accommodation or if it does not no legal actions are taken against them for providing it.

The closes the Catholic church could do to matching this is opening up schools which it patronises and partially funds to the homeless. The schools have halls with space, often have a canteen or the ability to cook food and showers.

Unfortunately the schools already operate schools and to open up these facilities to the homeless would invite the religious orders to legal action from the state (which also partially funds the schools).

Any facilities owned by the churches suitable for accomodating the homeless are used for that purpose or used for another purpose and the church would be opening themselves for legal action. The provision of unsuitable facilities would be much like Apollo house where the homeless occupied a derelict office block. If nama and the state (being the owners of the office block) allowed the homeless to stay the homeless occupying the property could have sued nama for providing poor facilities.

Mrs OBumble

FutureGuy wrote: »

.

I am referring to the immediate short term when there is a pending cold snap. While there are options for homeless people in our major towns and cities, the homeless in smaller areas have nowhere to turn.

Every county council is legally required to provide for the homeless people in its area.

Opening council depots would be more sensible than opening churches: at least the council buildings have toilets.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or it could conceivably cost lives. Churches aren't designed or constructed for this.

Seemingly a manger was deemed fit for one homeless family.

We have planning codes and building regulations and laws about structures that are used for human habitation for a reason. People sleeping in a church and trying to keep warm may, for example, overload the wiring, or light fires in places where fires shouldn't be lit.

Can you really see the authorities evicting the homeless from a church (of all places) because building codes are being transgressed. Although seemingly not attracting the greatest of minds in the main, politics isn't that stupid.

Plus, "opening a church" isn't simply a matter of leaving the doors unlocked. There needs to be supervision, there needs to be support. The Catholic church already has people working in this area, both volunteers and paid staff; are they to be pulled off the more effective projects that they are working on and diverted to this one?

More volunteers? The expression, where there's a will there's a way springs to mind. The problem, at root, lies in the will or lack thereof. Given I don't open up my own home (but recall my wife family (when she was a kid) taking in a homeless person for an extended period) I'm not flinging mud here. The lack of ambition of the church referred to earlier, includes me.

I just think that ought to be recognised for what it is, rather than finding lame excuses. Do you really think this would stack up were the Lord to decide to take part in the boards.ie discussion?

CIARAN_BOYLE

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can you really see the authorities evicting the homeless from a church (of all places) because building codes are being transgressed. Although seemingly not attracting the greatest of minds in the main, politics isn't that stupid.

You are more likely to see the church being fined after the fact and free legal aid provided to the homeless persons to sue to the church.

beauf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seemingly a manger was deemed fit for one homeless family.

They weren't sharing the manager with drug addicts and people perhaps with complex medical issues, or violent people. The issue the homeless people have is security. Not simply a roof. They often leave the shelters because they feel safer outside of them, away from others.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can you really see the authorities evicting the homeless from a church (of all places) because building codes are being transgressed. Although seemingly not attracting the greatest of minds in the main, politics isn't that stupid. ....

They have already evicted homeless people and squatters out of Nama buildings a good few times.

There is no sane reason to use a church.