St. Boniface Church In San Francisco Lets Homeless People Sleep In Pews

[Elizabeth502]

No it is not a good point. It is just an uncharitable remark that contributes nothing to the discussion, just a nasty, immature, sarcastic dig.

So far, even though there has been vehement disagreement, people have been trying to present their viewpoint with charity and logic, not sarcasm. Let’s hope the discussion remains on a higher level than this.

Are you talking about Lawrence’s remark? The opinion of at least one other poster disagrees with you. You presented your own as some Absolute, which it is not. I will share what the purpose of my own statement was, however, the one to which Lawrence responded.

My own is a straightforward statement. If the plight of the homeless is so extreme, and so lacking in alternative resources other than the particular church nave of St. Boniface, and other than those hours of the day, that it requires St. Boniface, in the mind of those managing the parish, to relinquish 2/3 of the worship space to sleeping space, including during the two Mass times, then there is no reason to assume that the homeless do not need 100% of the space. The priorities have been drawn. Sleeping space for homeless people is twice as important as worship space for parishioners and visitors. Why is it only twice as important? It sounds to me as if this is a City emergency.

For example, during times of war or national emergencies (everywhere, not just in this country), governments typically open church space for all kinds of things, because the situation is considered extraordinary and not normal. The usual uses of those spaces are transformed to different uses because there is an emergency. The mere extraordinary use of St. Boniface signifies that St. Boniface views this as an emergency, in which case the entire worship space should be opened as a free hotel, not just 2/3 of it.

 

[latin_rite]

I don’t see the problem. Jesus didn’t mind sleeping amongst the poor 2,000 yrs ago.

But these people are sleeping not adoring?

Did Jesus send the apostles away when they slept, because they wouldn’t have been “adoring” him?
No. Jesus wasn’t vain.
And i think many of those ppl are giving thanks for a safe place to lay their head.
I also believe that helping someone in the name of Jesus is just as important as any prayer or ritual

 

[BroomWagon]

I don’t see the problem. Jesus didn’t mind sleeping amongst the poor 2,000 yrs ago.

Did Jesus send the apostles away when they slept, because they wouldn’t have been “adoring” him?
No. Jesus wasn’t vain.
And i think many of those ppl are giving thanks for a safe place to lay their head.
I also believe that helping someone in the name of Jesus is just as important as any prayer or ritual

It’s interesting that your name is Latin Rite and you say this. Latin or Strongly Traditional Catholic Churches often treat everything, every single thing in the Church with great reverence, do they remove the Eucharist at the end of an Adoration Service? If a Lay person does it, he better be wearing white spotted gloves. Speaking of the Latin Tridentine Mass, I’m not sure if I can even envision this during that kind of a service with women with their heads covered, men in suits and the Priest with his back to the faithful.

This is just to say, I think there are pros and cons for both sides.

But back to post #167, that’s what I saw in it, a sort of calling of that which is sacred. Nothing else at all, it really does call into question where the line could be.

Yes, we love the poor and wish to make their plight better. We may even consider the Poor to be holy.

We also read in the Bible that with the Jews, there were parts of the Temple, only Priests could enter. Zechariah received his vision in Luke 1 in such a part of the Temple.

I just think there are pros and cons on both sides.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you talking about Lawrence’s remark? The opinion of at least one other poster disagrees with you. You presented your own as some Absolute, which it is not. I will share what the purpose of my own statement was, however, the one to which Lawrence responded.

My own is a straightforward statement. If the plight of the homeless is so extreme, and so lacking in alternative resources other than the particular church nave of St. Boniface, and other than those hours of the day, that it requires St. Boniface, in the mind of those managing the parish, to relinquish 2/3 of the worship space to sleeping space, including during the two Mass times, then there is no reason to assume that the homeless do not need 100% of the space. The priorities have been drawn. Sleeping space for homeless people is twice as important as worship space for parishioners and visitors. Why is it only twice as important? It sounds to me as if this is a City emergency.

For example, during times of war or national emergencies (everywhere, not just in this country), governments typically open church space for all kinds of things, because the situation is considered extraordinary and not normal. The usual uses of those spaces are transformed to different uses because there is an emergency. The mere extraordinary use of St. Boniface signifies that St. Boniface views this as an emergency, in which case the entire worship space should be opened as a free hotel, not just 2/3 of it.

This is a plea to the extreme which seems to have been made to dissuade others from taking steps on the grounds that it will lead to unwanted consequences. It is a typical strategy to curtail action, but needs to be refuted by the simple counterpoint that reasonable action can be taken following prudential steps with defined exit points.

There are several informative pieces on what the project actually does and how it is managed.

sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Project-Gubbio-at-St-Boniface-sanctuary-of-sleep-3407103.php#page-1

thegubbioproject.org/news.html

I suggest anyone with an opinion on this should take the time to inform themselves before adding further comments.

 

[triumphguy]

This is not an issue of following the corporal works of mercy. This is an issue of giving the Blessed Sacrament its proper dignity.

What could offer more dignity to Our Lord present in the Eucharist than doing a corporal work of mercy for the homeless?

 

[empantarhei]

What could offer more dignity to Our Lord present in the Eucharist than doing a corporal work of mercy for the homeless?

 

[BroomWagon]

Are you talking about Lawrence’s remark? The opinion of at least one other poster disagrees with you. You presented your own as some Absolute, which it is not. I will share what the purpose of my own statement was, however, the one to which Lawrence responded.

My own is a straightforward statement. If the plight of the homeless is so extreme, and so lacking in alternative resources other than the particular church nave of St. Boniface, and other than those hours of the day, that it requires St. Boniface, in the mind of those managing the parish, to relinquish 2/3 of the worship space to sleeping space, including during the two Mass times, then there is no reason to assume that the homeless do not need 100% of the space. The priorities have been drawn. Sleeping space for homeless people is twice as important as worship space for parishioners and visitors. Why is it only twice as important? It sounds to me as if this is a City emergency.

For example, during times of war or national emergencies (everywhere, not just in this country), governments typically open church space for all kinds of things, because the situation is considered extraordinary and not normal. The usual uses of those spaces are transformed to different uses because there is an emergency. The mere extraordinary use of St. Boniface signifies that St. Boniface views this as an emergency, in which case the entire worship space should be opened as a free hotel, not just 2/3 of it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t see the problem. Jesus didn’t mind sleeping amongst the poor 2,000 yrs ago.

Indeed. But they also weren’t napping in the Temple – not them, not Him. As someone said earlier, let’s not assume that we know what Jesus would do in the contemporary industrialized world. We know he told us to care for the poor. Separately, he also told us to keep God’s House as a House of Prayer. Unless there’s an emergency (as I mentioned already) then it’s neither necessary nor appropriate to combine the two.

I also believe that helping someone in the name of Jesus is just as important as any prayer or ritual

Why do so many people believe it’s necessary to set up an artificial choice? Supplanting one for the other, or combining them simultaneously (as here) is unnecessary unless there’s a massive emergency, as in war or natural disaster.

In researching this further, I discovered that as recently as 2006, St. Boniface ran its own separate shelter on Golden Gate Avenue, and I guess does no longer because, according to the Chron, “city officials began shutting it down.” In seeing photos of it, it seemed clean to me. And the City instead forced those who could afford them (those getting some income) into SRO hotel rooms. I know for a fact that many of those SRO hotels are cockroach-infested, have sub-code plumbing, and therefore overpriced.

I also learned (I actually already knew it; I just learned more details) that the entire homelessness situation is horribly poorly managed by SF officials, has been for years, has no centrality to it, poor record-keeping, and no coordination involved. Again, then, the solution, it seems to me, outpaces and outsizes the ability and willingness of the churches in the City to become massive homeless shelters. Instead, the situation requires a concerted effort on the part of religious representatives (including Jews) to pressure the City into centralizing shelters, managing them with security and cleanliness, and using the churches for auxiliary support (such as those which provide showers and meals ), rather than any particular parish pretending that it can singlehandedly, or should singlehandedly, become a homeless shelter. That’s way too convenient for the City.

Jesus told us to be the conscience of the poor. It’s time for religious organizations to be that collective conscience, not to become insufficient hotels. JMO.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Are you talking about Lawrence’s remark? The opinion of at least one other poster disagrees with you. You presented your own as some Absolute, which it is not. I will share what the purpose of my own statement was, however, the one to which Lawrence responded.

My own is a straightforward statement. If the plight of the homeless is so extreme, and so lacking in alternative resources other than the particular church nave of St. Boniface, and other than those hours of the day, that it requires St. Boniface, in the mind of those managing the parish, to relinquish 2/3 of the worship space to sleeping space, including during the two Mass times, then there is no reason to assume that the homeless do not need 100% of the space. The priorities have been drawn. Sleeping space for homeless people is twice as important as worship space for parishioners and visitors. Why is it only twice as important? It sounds to me as if this is a City emergency.

For example, during times of war or national emergencies (everywhere, not just in this country), governments typically open church space for all kinds of things, because the situation is considered extraordinary and not normal. The usual uses of those spaces are transformed to different uses because there is an emergency. The mere extraordinary use of St. Boniface signifies that St. Boniface views this as an emergency, in which case the entire worship space should be opened as a free hotel, not just 2/3 of it.

I was talking about his remark, I don’t care if someone disagrees with me, but what I said stands for me. I read your posts before, I know and understand what you said, it is irrelevant to my opinion of the remark. I wasn’t referring to anything you said. The remark was sarcastic and unnecessary, and believe me, most everyone here is presenting their opinion as some absolute, and I am not excluding anyone"s “straightforward” statements.

I made my opinion clear on the original subject at hand at the beginning, nothing has convinced me otherwise, and I have nothing further to say on the original subject. Which, I suspect is the position of most people. Meanwhile, St. Boniface’s is happily continuing to shelter the homeless and take care of them in their church, and will continue to do so, despite their critics.

 

[RoseMary131]

Thank you for a thoroughly amusing way of looking at things. I never thought a person could see things in such a… creative light…and it will only serve to amuse yourself and others.

I did not post to amuse anyone.

In response to this:
You seem to have a confusion concerning what a debate is, and how things usually go after it has been established.

When a debate is begun, a topic is chosen, sometimes intentionally (thread subject) and sometimes arbitrarily (when persons begin talking about a tangent). In this case, the topic was chosen arbitrarily, because posters began talking about whether or not it is respectful to sleep in the Church.

I do understand a debate. I felt you were turning other people’s conversation into a debate for them to defend their position in a manner accepting to you. I see Peter Plato has accepted the debate format with you and has helped to set the rules between those debating.

Now, once the argument has been established, all subsequent posts which are posted in response to that argument are expected to stay on topic.

When some people posted their reason for believing St. Boniface Church should serve the poor by allowing them to sleep in the pews even during Mass, you decided their reasoning was off topic or otherwise not accepted. The poster was stating their reason, their feeling. I felt these posters should be able to quote scripture that they felt drew their hearts to accept the weary sleeping in the pew when invited by the church. Many seem to be having a conversation. You were holding a debate under your rules and your decisions.

I’m not playing a game or scoring points. Maybe you are, but I am not. If you wish to look at me as doing so, go ahead; it will do you no good and me no harm.

This is a good point. However, I will not accept it as a point on my side, because I am not debating about helping people but about the respect to the Sacrament

The reason I mentioned “scoring points” is because you wrote: “This is a good point. However, I will not accept it as a point on my side.” It was your response to grotto in your post of #123.

I felt very much called to respond to you in regards to your quote below. I asked God to help me at Mass to know if I should respond.

When I heard the second reading, I thought “yes”, that was clearly an answer that it was acceptable to share my thoughts with you. Then at Father’s homily, he focused on the reading and even mentioned that there might be someone with whom we should share these words.

Fair enough. If I have seemed sarcastic or unkind, it is probably a side effect of my frustration at most of my points being ignored, especially by “Cheezy.”

When I am in a discussion and my opponents keep making points which I have refuted previously, instead of making an unkind remark my normal response is slight sarcasm, because it is often more effective to let a person see their own mistake rather than point it out to them.

These are my thought on your remarks.

I do not think some of the posters here felt they were your “opponents” as you called them.

You do at times appear sarcastic and unkind. You say that it is probably a “side effect of (your) frustration”.

None of us can allow our feelings to become an action that is unkind to another. You felt some people, and especially Cheezy, were “ignoring” your points. Your feeling of being ignored does not give you a just reason to sound unkind.

As you gave me a suggestion to read over my post so I had a chance to fix them…

RoseMary, I’d suggest reading over your own posts and seeing where your logic contradicts itself, so you get a chance to fix them. .

…I would like to make a suggestion to you (which would apply to all of us) that when writing, in conversation or debate, that you take a chance to fix them, to remove any signs of unkindness.

Mass Reading for Feb. 3, 2013 usccb.org/bible/readings/020313.cfm
1 Cor. 12:31-13.3

Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, it is not pompous,
It is not inflated, it is not rude,

In all charity, Lent may be a good time to reflect on how you treat others with your writings and “smilies”. (Asking if homeless people are owls and following that with is not kind.)

St. Peter tells us, “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we share in conversation or debate, let us do so with “gentleness and reverence”.

To make your point as to the Reverence due Our Lord at the expense of being unkind to another person, lowers reverence due Our Lord.

Peace.

 

[RoseMary131]

While we are at it, lets use the Altar, too. We can give them altar cloths for blankets.

18 year old Catholic discerning vocation to the FSSP

Lawrence, if a FFSP priest responded to a post about St. Boniface Church allowing the homeless to sleep during the day in their church, do you think he would do so with these words?

My reaction to your message was sorrow, but I do have hope that when you are a priest you will have a different way to express your opposition.

Peace.

 

[empantarhei]

None of us can allow our feelings to become an action that is unkind to another. You felt some people, and especially Cheezy, were “ignoring” your points. Your feeling of being ignored does not give you a just reason to sound unkind.

**
Mass Reading for Feb. 3, 2013 usccb.org/bible/readings/020313.cfm**
1 Cor. 12:31-13.3

Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, it is not pompous,
It is not inflated, it is not rude,

In all charity, Lent may be a good time to reflect on how you treat others with your writings and “smilies”. (Asking if homeless people are owls and following that with is not kind.)

St. Peter tells us, “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we share in conversation or debate, let us do so with “gentleness and reverence”.

To make your point as to the Reverence due Our Lord at the expense of being unkind to another person, lowers reverence due Our Lord.

Peace.

I spent 36 hours in three days this week trying to find shelter for myself. Full, full, full; EVERYWHERE full. I was sure there would be somewhere for me, too. Nothing…
Where else to find such nearness to God and His Son but in this manner?

Thanks for addressing my smallest point and ignoring all of my big ones.

:tsktsk:

You are welcome. Why does this need to be complicated? And thank you for your concern.

Again, thank you, RoseMary…

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Lawrence178]

It is a good point about where would one draw the line. A lot if not most churches have banquet halls or attics, basements and so on.

You put that in a much more charitable way than I did. Thank you.

 

[triumphguy]

A reason why St. Boniface (a Franciscan parish) would be doing this can be glimpsed in the writings of Thomas of Celano in his First Testament of the Life of Francis, Chapter 7.

1. Then the holy lover of complete humility went to the lepers and lived with them, serving them most diligently for God’s sake; and washing all foulness from them, he wiped away also the corruption of the ulcers, just as he said in his Testament: “When I was in sins, it seemed extremely bitter to me to look at lepers, and the Lord himself led me among them and I practiced mercy with them.” So greatly loathsome was the sight of lepers to him at one time, he used to say, that, in the days of his vanity, he would look at their houses only from a distance of two miles and he would hold his nostrils with his hands. But now, when by the grace and the power of the Most High he was beginning to think of holy and useful things, while he was still clad in secular garments, he met a leper one day and, made stronger than himself, he kissed him. From then on he began to despise himself more and more, until, by the mercy of the Redeemer, he came to perfect victory over himself. Of other poor, too, while he yet remained in the world and still followed the world, he was the helper, stretching forth a hand of mercy to those who had nothing, and showing compassion to the afflicted. For when one day, contrary to his custom, for he was a most courteous person, he upbraided a certain poor man who had asked an alms of him, he was immediately sorry; and he began to say to himself that it was a great reproach and a shame to withhold what was asked from one who had asked in the name of so great a King. He therefore resolved in his heart never in the future to refuse any one, if at all possible, who asked for the love of God. This he most diligently did and carried out, until he sacrificed himself entirely and in every way; and thus he became first a practitioner before he became a teacher of the evangelical counsel: To him who asks of thee, he said, give; and from him who would borrow of thee, do not turn away.

 

[Elizabeth502]

triumphguy,

I doubt that many people on this forum are not aware of the charism of the Franciscans to minister to the poor. For most of the Order, this is a primary work, and for some it’s their exclusive work.

The question is not whether Franciscans devote their lives to the poor. The question is where that should happen, and must it include the interiors of Catholic Churches housing the Blessed Sacrament, and during Mass as well? Some people think not, and some people think that Jesus did not command us to surrender worship space because the civil authorities are clearly not doing the jobs for which they were appointed and for which they are being paid. What I didn’t mention in my last post was the lack of accountability for the funding of homeless problems, and yes, the City does have a fund for this. Newspaper articles have referred to the accountability problem by name. More than one city of late has experienced corruption in the handling of funds for specific purposes, wherein (in those cases) funds were diverted for personal use, or merely squandered in other city projects.

While I have no objection to Martin Sheen or anyone doing fundraisers for social projects such as decent shelters for the homeless, it’s actually preposterous that private organizations & instittutions would have to go extreme lengths to do a government’s job, not to mention surrender their own space dedicated for their own members (who do pay for that space). Supplementing is one thing; supplanting is something else. So, my main problem with this is what a lot of people’s problem is with it. While I agree with many CAF’ers that private organizations often do a much better job than government does, in the delivery of services, the space for social services and the funding of services is more economically financed by government than it is by private groups. It tends to be that once private groups became so organically involved in this manner, gov’t conveniently absolves itself of its responsibility, while continuing to collect taxes on services not being provided. (Hence, the opportunity for corruption.)

Just so that everybody is clear, this is in fact what’s going on now. The citizens of SF are paying secular taxes for the City, not to St. Boniface or its parishioners, to house the homeless in group situations, financed by city funds. In 2006, St. Boniface’s own non-sacramental-site shelter was closed, displacing those local residents to crummy hotels which only some could afford. This was done to feed hotel taxes (which are extremely high in SF), to keep those hotels alive as revenue for a City which has a small rich tax base and a large poor tax base.

Again, this is corruption. The religious organizations, en masse, should be standing up to the corruption, publicizing it widely, instead of caving in to the status quo and deciding to try to be 1/100th of what the agencies are paid to do.

 

[BroomWagon]

Reverend Louis Vitale, God Bless Him, seems to be a Founder of Project Gubbio. He lists influences as St. Francis, Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Vitale thegubbioproject.org/enews_nov2011.html

Also, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=608366 This thread may be talking about this Church from the vantage point of someone who went there for Confession. Also, note post #47: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8555815&postcount=47 Haven’t read the entire thread yet.

One comment at one of the articles posted in this forum also indicated some other Churches in SF may be carrying out this aid to the poor as well and have for some time. Of course, this is unconfirmed, seems possible. Not sure if that means other Christian Churches or just other Catholic Churches.

 

[empantarhei]

while continuing to collect taxes on services not being provided.

I need to ask a naive question here, please be patient and understanding:
Is the amount of taxes collected equal to the current need?
It seems that x amount of taxes + proper services being rendered can’t equal the extraordinary need right now. It just seems to be that desperate a situation.

 

[BroomWagon]

It is a situation though, “there but for the grace of God go I” (seems the quote is thought to have originated with a John Bradford). So, yes, we should all be concerned with helping out the destitute and needy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I need to ask a naive question here, please be patient and understanding:
Is the amount of taxes collected equal to the current need?
It seems that x amount of taxes + proper services being rendered can’t equal the extraordinary need right now. It just seems to be that desperate a situation.

Given what I have read (keep in mind I am not an accountant, let alone a member of the City gov’t), it appears that since even before 2006 --let alone now-- the City has had more than sufficient tax revenues targeted specifically for this problem, to handle it. I have some resources I can re-locate for you later on that. I have reason to believe that the City has diverted that money into other budget items because of a lack of oversight, combined with expediency. (Expediency being other city coffers dwindling, again, due to a more compromised tax base after the '08 Wall Street cash, which extended to the rich neighborhoods in the City.)

As to the “emergency,” there is not some sudden new wave of homelessness, no. If anything, there appear --from a number of signs-- to be fewer homeless now than two years ago, for example. There was more of a “surge,” so to speak, several years ago ('06-09 mortgage meltdown), which has dwindled, comparatively. That said, this particular neighborhood has an imbalance of homeless, compared to certain other more mixed neighborhoods, but it’s a steady imbalance. Part of that is because it’s a logical place to gather, given that the Franciscans run St. Anthony’s Dining Hall down the street, which as I said earlier, distributes free food.

No, there’s not a sudden new “desperation.” It’s more of a stagnant situation and a clueless, largely self-serving local gov’t more interested in wooing and serving the rich because of declining tax revenue for the combined needs of the City.

 

[triumphguy]

triumphguy,

I doubt that many people on this forum are not aware of the charism of the Franciscans to minister to the poor. For most of the Order, this is a primary work, and for some it’s their exclusive work.

The question is not whether Franciscans devote their lives to the poor. The question is where that should happen, and must it include the interiors of Catholic Churches housing the Blessed Sacrament, and during Mass as well? Some people think not, and some people think that Jesus did not command us to surrender worship space because the civil authorities are clearly not doing the jobs for which they were appointed and for which they are being paid. What I didn’t mention in my last post was the lack of accountability for the funding of homeless problems, and yes, the City does have a fund for this. Newspaper articles have referred to the accountability problem by name. More than one city of late has experienced corruption in the handling of funds for specific purposes, wherein (in those cases) funds were diverted for personal use, or merely squandered in other city projects.

While I have no objection to Martin Sheen or anyone doing fundraisers for social projects such as decent shelters for the homeless, it’s actually preposterous that private organizations & instittutions would have to go extreme lengths to do a government’s job, not to mention surrender their own space dedicated for their own members (who do pay for that space). Supplementing is one thing; supplanting is something else. So, my main problem with this is what a lot of people’s problem is with it. While I agree with many CAF’ers that private organizations often do a much better job than government does, in the delivery of services, the space for social services and the funding of services is more economically financed by government than it is by private groups. It tends to be that once private groups became so organically involved in this manner, gov’t conveniently absolves itself of its responsibility, while continuing to collect taxes on services not being provided. (Hence, the opportunity for corruption.)

Just so that everybody is clear, this is in fact what’s going on now. The citizens of SF are paying secular taxes for the City, not to St. Boniface or its parishioners, to house the homeless in group situations, financed by city funds. In 2006, St. Boniface’s own non-sacramental-site shelter was closed, displacing those local residents to crummy hotels which only some could afford. This was done to feed hotel taxes (which are extremely high in SF), to keep those hotels alive as revenue for a City which has a small rich tax base and a large poor tax base.

Again, this is corruption. The religious organizations, en masse, should be standing up to the corruption, publicizing it widely, instead of caving in to the status quo and deciding to try to be 1/100th of what the agencies are paid to do.

I appreciate the thrust of your argument. I think you are right in demanding that the civil authorities look after the homeless. However, as no doubt you know, successive levels of Government and healthcare have cut costs by dumping the mentally ill on the streets, to be arrested from time to time and cycled through jails.

I’m not sure that in cities like SF, or LA, or Vancouver in Canada that the local officials are willing to spend money to house the poor, and the mentally ill.

I know that when I was a Franciscan in formation we would not feed the poor at the friary, but take them to drop-in centres, or rehab in order to somehow break the cycle of addiction and poverty etc. However, many of those places are now closed, so what do you do?

When I was a prison chaplain the inmate population would spike around Christmas as the homeless would break a store window in order to be sent to jail for over the holiday, so they could have some guaranteed food and shelter during the “festive” season.