San Francisco cathedral sprinkler aimed for safety, not homeless [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Havard said:
It sounds like you’re mad that they are even explaining their side. :confused: They did own up to the fact that it was wrong. The reason they are explaining the mitigating details is because the entirety of the media, minus a few Catholic sources, are only reporting the negative aspects of the story and letting people assume the worst to fill in the gaps.

Bishop Justice even specifically said, in yesterday’s press conference, that none of these mitigating details made the practice right. But he and his staff can’t just let people think the worst, they have a right and a responsibility to explain how and why this all came to be.
Click to expand...
I’m not upset that they are explaining their side, I’m bothered by their explanation not really standing up to a low-level investigation and suspect that it would fall apart more if someone were to actually look into it. Honestly what are the chances that even with an effective drainage system that there was a high enough frequency of needle and feces depositing to really justify hourly spray downs? The diocese is asking me to believe very specific claims and I am countering that they are hard to digest. Given the current information I honestly believe that the intent of this system, and at least some of the people responsible for it, was to spray down homeless individuals who tried to camp out in this area. I also think that most people who look at this situation are going to see the same thing.
 
PatrickSebast said:
I’m not upset that they are explaining their side, I’m bothered by their explanation not really standing up to a low-level investigation and suspect that it would fall apart more if someone were to actually look into it. Honestly what are the chances that even with an effective drainage system that there was a high enough frequency of needle and feces depositing to really justify hourly spray downs? The diocese is asking me to believe very specific claims and I am countering that they are hard to digest. Given the current information I honestly believe that the intent of this system, and at least some of the people responsible for it, was to spray down homeless individuals who tried to camp out in this area. I also think that most people who look at this situation are going to see the same thing.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. The water was not to wash needles and feces, it was to prevent people from depositing needles and feces.

It was to make it “not a good place to camp”. There are lots of other areas on the grounds to camp besides those doorways.
 
Their explanation is nonsense. They’ve been doing this for two years and it never occured to them that they are literally dowsing Christ with water to chase Him and his beloved away. Now all of a sudden they have a conversion and realize they were wrong? Sorry but it rings hollow to me. They would keep on doing it if nobody made it known.

I love how this is looked at as a smear campaign. They smeared themselves with filth, others are simply pointing it out. Even worse is that it is in the City named after St. Francis.

I’m so sick of this false Christianity that is so obsessed with the genitles of others that they forget the Gospel as it was preached by God Himself. I’m angry so I’ll stop. :mad:
 
Is this the the same bishop that got DUI a few years ago? Starting to see a pattern of bad decisions here.
 
J_Peterson said:
Their explanation is nonsense. They’ve been doing this for two years and it never occured to them that they are literally dowsing Christ with water to chase Him and his beloved away. Now all of a sudden they have a conversion and realize they were wrong? Sorry but it rings hollow to me. They would keep on doing it if nobody made it known.

I love how this is looked at as a smear campaign. They smeared themselves with filth, others are simply pointing it out. Even worse is that it is in the City named after St. Francis.

I’m so sick of this false Christianity that is so obsessed with the genitles of others that they forget the Gospel as it was preached by God Himself. I’m angry so I’ll stop. :mad:
Click to expand...
If they water their lawn does that mean they are soaking Christ because a homeless person chose to sleep on the lawn?

How many homeless were soaked by this? I saw none only reference to it and it seems that the homeless were either choosing not to sleep there or were sleeping in a way that avoided the sprinkler knowing it was there but choosing the spot anyway.

Your getting angry about a false narrative. This is manufactured none sense.

The church does tremendous work for the poor. So much that their would be a true crisis if we stopped what we are doing including at the cathedral.

I suggest not getting upset and looking more at the big picture. The church is helping the poor and a poorly conceived spout above 4 doorways doesn’t change that.
 
Maybe the idea was not so great but keeping people from defiling the Church is sound. It’s California, it’s warm all year, sort of, the stench was probably sickening. You want your Grandmother stepping over drug addicts on her way to Mass? You think that’s safe? I’ll bet the cops don’t even show up for these calls. It’s easy to say oh the poor homeless got wet, well, they should go to a shelter, they’re available, you don’t get to party there though and that probably makes some people uncomfortable.

Seems to me Christ was not so happy with the money changers either. Find someplace else to create a disgusting public nuisance or go to a shelter and act like a human being.
 
Jon_S said:
If they water their lawn does that mean they are soaking Christ because a homeless person chose to sleep on the lawn?

How many homeless were soaked by this? I saw none only reference to it and it seems that the homeless were either choosing not to sleep there or were sleeping in a way that avoided the sprinkler knowing it was there but choosing the spot anyway.

Your getting angry about a false narrative. This is manufactured none sense.

The church does tremendous work for the poor. So much that their would be a true crisis if we stopped what we are doing including at the cathedral.

I suggest not getting upset and looking more at the big picture. The church is helping the poor and a poorly conceived spout above 4 doorways doesn’t change that.
Click to expand...
The intent of installing the sprinklers was to keep the homeless out of the doorways. Is spraying people like stray dogs the proper way to go about it? This has been going on for 2 years and now they are sorry? Why are they sorry now? Is the financial district really the best place to get ideas on how to deal with the homeless? This is a clear violation of Church teaching. There is no excuse for it at all.

I am a part of the Church so I know what She does. This is not one of the things the Chruch does. This was the act of misguided humans who happen to belong to the Church. I am angry at them, not the Chruch.
 
Phil502 said:
Maybe the idea was not so great but keeping people from defiling the Church is sound. It’s California, it’s warm all year, sort of, the stench was probably sickening. You want your Grandmother stepping over drug addicts on her way to Mass? You think that’s safe? I’ll bet the cops don’t even show up for these calls. It’s easy to say oh the poor homeless got wet, well, they should go to a shelter, they’re available, you don’t get to party there though and that probably makes some people uncomfortable.

Seems to me Christ was not so happy with the money changers either. Find someplace else to create a disgusting public nuisance or go to a shelter and act like a human being.
Click to expand...
Not a solution. Churches are a haven for many homeless and hungry. Many aren’t Catholic or affiliated with the diocese. It’s just that this was made into a public and political issue probably because of someone having an axe to grind.
 
robertmidwest said:
sfarchdiocese.org/home/archbishop

It’s the Cathederal in San Francisco we are talking about correct?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Cathedral’s governance is handled by Bishop Justice, who is supported by advisory councils and a large staff. There are three bishops in the Archdiocese, not including the bishops emeritus. Bishop Justice is the rector of the Cathedral. His predecessor implemented the sprinkler system, but he did not remove it. He took responsibility and apologized.

Bishop Justice is a holy, down-to-earth man. I am positive that he feels bad about this. He’s spent a lot of time serving the homeless, and this mistake is not representative of his life’s ministry.
 
Havard said:
Yes. The Cathedral’s governance is handled by Bishop Justice, who is supported by advisory councils and a large staff. There are three bishops in the Archdiocese, not including the bishops emeritus. Bishop Justice is the rector of the Cathedral. His predecessor implemented the sprinkler system, but he did not remove it. He took responsibility and apologized.

Bishop Justice is a holy, down-to-earth man. I am positive that he feels bad about this. He’s spent a lot of time serving the homeless, and this mistake is not representative of his life’s ministry.
Click to expand...
And Cordileone is head of the diocese correct? He bears responsibility for what goes on in the diocese correct?
 
robertmidwest said:
And Cordileone is head of the diocese correct? He bears responsibility for what goes on in the diocese correct?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Do you also impute everything that happens in the Rome to the Pope?

I assume not.

Why you think the Archbishop’s name should be brought into this is beyond me. If his “mistake” here is trusting Bishop Justice to do his job well, then the only thing he’s guilty of is prudence. Bishop Justice is a good man and I would trust him to do the right thing a lot more than my own self. Yes, Bishop Justice made a mistake. He has already apologized for this and dismantled the system. He should be forgiven and we should move on.
 
Jon_S said:
You misunderstand. The water was not to wash needles and feces, it was to prevent people from depositing needles and feces.

It was to make it “not a good place to camp”. There are lots of other areas on the grounds to camp besides those doorways.
Click to expand...
There are also lots of humane ways of dealing with the problem. Are they more resource intensive than setting up a system to automatically spray undesirables? Probably.

Does anyone really believe that it was even close to the method Christ would have taken? I’m guessing not.
 
Phil502 said:
Maybe the idea was not so great but keeping people from defiling the Church is sound. It’s California, it’s warm all year, sort of, the stench was probably sickening. You want your Grandmother stepping over drug addicts on her way to Mass? You think that’s safe? I’ll bet the cops don’t even show up for these calls. It’s easy to say oh the poor homeless got wet, well, they should go to a shelter, they’re available, you don’t get to party there though and that probably makes some people uncomfortable.

Seems to me Christ was not so happy with the money changers either. Find someplace else to create a disgusting public nuisance or go to a shelter and act like a human being.
Click to expand...
San Francisco is not known for being warm year round.
 
sallybutler said:
San Francisco is not known for being warm year round.
Click to expand...
You’re right. San Francisco is usually mild and cool - 50’s in the winter, 60’s in the summer.

But Bishop Justice and the diocesan spokesman didn’t say this was about the heat/smell. It was about the health and safety of the many visitors, especially at-risk visitors such as the elderly, children, and disabled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top