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

[Peter_Plato]

While superficially appearing to be a noble project, there is something quite disturbing about this. That sense of “take off your sandals, you are on holy ground” is missing and I suspect the Transcendent God - The Other, Different and Surpassing One, is being placed on a scale below man himself. I just have a problem with mixing the profane with the holy - The King and Real Presence.

This reaches into the “heart” of the matter. God becoming man in Christ was the ultimate case of the holy mixing with the “profane” in order to sanctify and divinize it. As to removing sandals, it is not clear to me that a person with only one pair of worn out shoes to his/her name is not, in fact, closer to having removed their sandals than a person with a closet full of expensive footwear.

How are we defining “profane?” Could it be that we have a natural distaste for the poor and unkempt that we are unconsciously blending into the definition of profane? Perhaps assuming that order, cleanliness, security and prosperity are signs of the holy, whereas a lack of those are signs of the unholy? Yet Jesus himself said, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” (Matt 8:20)
So being penniless, devoid of footwear and without a pillow might, in fact, be a symbol of where and how Jesus now chooses to reside and where holy ground might be found.

 

[Sarcelle]

Have you ever been homeless? I have. Let me tell you about the fear you live with day in and day out because you don’t know where you will be sleeping that night, if you will be safe, or where your next meal will come from. I can’t blame those people for sleeping, even during Mass. It must be a HUGE weight off their minds to know that they can sleep in a peaceful and safe environment. All the better that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit and are exposed to the liturgy and Eucharist. My heart goes out to them and I pray that they one day find a stable life like I did.

I cannot agree more.

In the end, however, it remains up to the parish priest and bishop of the diocese to make that decision of allowing the homeless to sleep in the church.

 

[BroomWagon]

Actually, some would surmise if we really wanted to take Christ’s messages to the utmost as St. Louis De Montfort did, perhaps we would even go so far as to take these homeless into our own home.

It’s sort of difficult, however, I’m not saying this to be judgmental, in giving to charity, we try to give of ourselves to those who need it, it be by services, volunteer or by donations.

If a homeless person was on the street and needed somewhere to sleep and you knew in fact, that this person happened to be Jesus Christ, then what? Would you let him sleep there then? As inferred above, I believe we do see Christ in the poor, in the hungry, in people we work with, associate with and see.

This issue does puzzle me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I just did a quick search on the Gubbio Project. Seems Martin Sheen, a Catholic and political activist who advances progressive politics is quite involved with this social justice group. That is not to say there is not some good being done, but here is a quote from their webpage:

“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”

Why? Do you believe an imbalance between rich and poor is, in fact, a desirable state?

 

[BroomWagon]

I just did a quick search on the Gubbio Project. Seems Martin Sheen, a Catholic and political activist who advances progressive politics is quite involved with this social justice group. That is not to say there is not some good being done, but here is a quote from their webpage:

This quote does nothing to assuage my unease.

I’ve given Martin Sheen the benefit of the doubt but I don’t like this response to abortion. In other words, it’s the old personally against but …

Q: What are your views on abortion?

Sheen: I cannot make a choice for a women, particularly a black or brown or poor pregnant woman. I would not make a judgment in the case. As a father and a grandfather, I have had experience with children who don’t always come when they are planned, and I have experienced the great joy of God’s presence in my children, so I’m inclined to be against abortion of any life. But I am equally against the death penalty or war-- anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means. I don’t think abortion is a good idea. I personally am opposed to abortion, but I will not judge anybody else’s right in that regard because I am not a woman and I could never face the actual reality of it.

Q: What is a radical Catholic, as you’ve called yourself?

Sheen: That is someone who follows the teachings of the nonviolent Jesus and takes the gospel personally, and then pays the price. I fall into that category.

martinsheen.net/id151.html

I think he’s played religious roles before which I thought were done okay.

Now, the above does appear to be from a few years ago but if he hasn’t changed his mind on this, it calls his cause serious into question for me.

So, he basically just touts liberalism, I am disappointed with Martin Sheen… I might even write him, email, I think he is somewhat accessible. And his son, Charlie has been in the press for such negative reasons, not sure about Emilio, maybe I’ve even heard some positives about Emilio Estevez.

 

[Tigg]

This reaches into the “heart” of the matter. God becoming man in Christ was the ultimate case of the holy mixing with the “profane” in order to sanctify and divinize it. As to removing sandals, it is not clear to me that a person with only one pair of worn out shoes to his/her name is not, in fact, closer to having removed their sandals than a person with a closet full of expensive footwear.

How are we defining “profane?” Could it be that we have a natural distaste for the poor and unkempt that we are unconsciously blending into the definition of profane? Perhaps assuming that order, cleanliness, security and prosperity are signs of the holy, whereas a lack of those are signs of the unholy? Yet Jesus himself said, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” (Matt 8:20)
So being penniless, devoid of footwear and without a pillow might, in fact, be a symbol of where and how Jesus now chooses to reside and where holy ground might be found.

Here we go again…WHY does one automatically assume that a love of the poor and distress over their plight is **absent **because Reverence, Piety and a Fear of the Lord, God, accompanied with a love for the liturgy and sacred things is **present. **

The poor can certainly avail themselves of The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord - HIS Real Presence in an appropriate manner. This is not to minimize material need, but to place each dimension in it’s proper and appointed place. Surely, church officials could work out a better solution!

 

[Tigg]

Why? Do you believe an imbalance between rich and poor is, in fact, a desirable state?

Please do not try to turn the tables on me, or assume things in such a simplistic manner. In case you are unaware, there is a global movement toward Marxism (indeed, right in this country too, at this moment in time) and the quote smells of class warfare to me.

If you are interested, you may want to research what our holy Pope Leo said regarding equality. I’m certain it will surprise you.

 

[empantarhei]

Wow! After reading each post, I find this to be a totally incorrect assessment of the comments! On a public board, we can each share our opinions and reasons for believing the way we do.

Yes, we all can and do.

How can you possibly and correctly judge the intent of the poster’s heart?

We can’t, hence the questions. But what you make of post 130 and the response of 132?

 

[empantarhei]

The intent is not purposeful irreverance to the Sacraments.
The intent is to help the homeless.
In helping the homeless, we honor Him. In this case, within His presence. No one deserves to be homeless; how beautiful to have His Shelter.

 

[dshix]

To dshix: I would like to make statements unrelated to St. Boniface Church In San Francisco Lets Homeless People Sleep In Pews.

I am interpreting what I read from you to be a “debate”. My interpretation implies that this thread is a form of a “game” for you. It appears to me that you have set up the “game”.

You have picked the “topic” for debate to be “Respect or Lack of Respect Deserve Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.” Under the topic of “Respect”, you have made a subtopic as to if “Sleep is or is not Dignified in the Presence of Our Lord”.

You have taken your place as a “player”. A player who gives his opponent suggestions so they can fix their mistakes before the next move is in play.

You have also taken your place as “moderator” to keep other people on “your topic”.

You have taken your place as the “judge” to decide “whose side gets a point”.

Thank you for a thoroughly amusing way of looking at things. I never thought a person could see things in such a… creative light.

If you feel like looking at it this way, that’s fine with me, but it won’t get you anywhere and it will only serve to amuse yourself and others.

In response to this:

You have picked the “topic” for debate to be “Respect or Lack of Respect Deserve Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.” Under the topic of “Respect”, you have made a subtopic as to if “Sleep is or is not Dignified in the Presence of Our Lord”.

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.

Now, once the argument has been established, all subsequent posts which are posted in response to that argument are expected to stay on topic. If the conversation was about whether processed milk or non-processed milk tastes better, it would be irrelevant for a poster to start talking about the effect of the different milks on the cows.

In that case, we aren’t talking about cows, we’re talking about milk.

---

Now, in this conversation, the debate has been mostly centered around reverence. I have been contending that it is disrespectful to sleep in the Church, and you and others have contended otherwise. That is the topic.

Therefore, when a person in response to one of my posts begins talking about how good it is to be housing the homeless, that is OFF topic. We aren’t talking about that.

Therefore, I say “irrelevant.”

While you are debating respect due Our Lord, you show little respect to those who are homeless:

You make one remark claiming the possibility that the priest and bishop are ignorant for the true dignity of the Sacrament. Then you change your “rules”.

Yet, this was your remark:

The point of my post is to express to you what I see in your message and at the same time to express to you that I did not respond to any messages on this thread as a “game” or “debate” to “score points for my side”. I imagine there are others who are not responding in a “debate” or “game” format.

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.

When you announce something is not relevant in your eyes and deserves to not be “discussed”, or off topic in your eyes and deserves not to be “discussed”, or use sarcasm, or announce what you think they know (“and you know it” type messages) — you are not practicing respect to the other person. The homeless and those writing on this thread are created in the image and likeness of God and we should treat each other with respect.

I addressed this just above.

I come to Catholic Answers to read what others have respectfully written and to engage respectfully with others.

This message is simply to describe for you my thoughts on my interpretation of reading your many messages.

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.

I notice you responded to my recent messages but have not read them, yet. My thoughts last night, as CatholicAnne mentioned, is “agree to disagree” on the topic of **St. Boniface In San Francisco Lets Homeless People Sleep In Pews. **

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the bolded. I’m not exactly capable of knowing what you said before reading it…

 

[dshix]

The intent is not purposeful irreverance to the Sacraments.
The intent is to help the homeless.
In helping the homeless, we honor Him. In this case, within His presence. No one deserves to be homeless; how beautiful to have His Shelter.

This is an incorrect assessment.

In that case that you have to choose between reverence to God and help to your fellow man, God takes precedence because he’s… well… God. If you don’t see that I think you just might have your priorities slightly off key…

 

[empantarhei]

This is an incorrect assessment.

In that case that you have to choose between reverence to God and help to your fellow man, God takes precedence because he’s… well… God. If you don’t see that I think you just might have your priorities slightly off key…

Helping your fellow man IS reverence to God. Where are YOUR priorites?
Wait!! I might have an idea…

 

[dshix]

Helping your fellow man IS reverence to God. Where are YOUR priorites?
Wait!! I might have an idea…

Read my post again. I think you might have missed one of the sentences.

 

[BroomWagon]

Actually, if I were really concerned about the Homeless like Martin Sheen and this is a long time favorite cause of his, his charity could be trying to raise money for themselves to build a homeless shelter and things along this line. For all I know they may be. All the same, it’s an idea.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please do not try to turn the tables on me, or assume things in such a simplistic manner. In case you are unaware, there is a global movement toward Marxism (indeed, right in this country too, at this moment in time) and the quote smells of class warfare to me.

It also smacks of justice.

If you are interested, you may want to research what our holy Pope Leo said regarding equality. I’m certain it will surprise you.

You must also realize that the early Church had a focus on equitable distribution of worldly wealth and Jesus pointedly advised selling material goods to give to the poor. Equality does not automatically translate to communism. I do agree that some are more capable of prudentially handling goods for the well-being of others and that God distributes “talents” unequally because of that fact. However, it is not clear to me that the current distribution of wealth in the world today anywhere near approaches what could be called acceptable in any moral sense. When a very tiny fraction of humanity controls an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of material assets to the detriment of most others, that is clearly an unjust state. It is also the state of things that provides misguided ideologies like communism a foothold in the world.

 

[dshix]

Actually, if I were really concerned about the Homeless like Martin Sheen and this is a long time favorite cause of his, his charity could be trying to raise money for themselves to build a homeless shelter and things along this line. For all I know they may be. All the same, it’s an idea.

That is a good idea. That is actually what we should all be doing.

Sadly, it seems a lot of parishes just seem too busy or troubled to do so.

Sigh… if only we can alleviate all the troubles in the world…

 

[Tigg]

It also smacks of justice.

You must also realize that the early Church had a focus on equitable distribution of worldly wealth and Jesus pointedly advised selling material goods to give to the poor. Equality does not automatically translate to communism. I do agree that some are more capable of prudentially handling goods for the well-being of others and that God distributes “talents” unequally because of that fact. However, it is not clear to me that the current distribution of wealth in the world today anywhere near approaches what could be called acceptable in any moral sense. When a very tiny fraction of humanity controls an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of material assets to the detriment of most others, that is clearly an unjust state. It is also the state of things that provides misguided ideologies like communism a foothold in the world.

This is an old argument, but with valid points. One must never think they are practicing virtue when the state takes away what rightfully belongs to them to give to another. Sorry, but the utopian dream of the left wing will never happen on earth and mankind cannot provide the perfect existence for all on the planet. Now God will provide for all who honor Him - but wait - liberalism wants to take Him out of the equation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, in this conversation, the debate has been mostly centered around reverence. I have been contending that it is disrespectful to sleep in the Church, and you and others have contended otherwise. That is the topic.

Okay, let’s address that point as an isolated one. Your contention must be either 1) that it is always disrespectful to sleep in Church or 2) that it is disrespectful in this instance.

Let’s address 1) first. By way of reply let’s consider instances where it may not be disrespectful. I think we would universally accept that a baby or very young child would not be accused of disrespect nodding off quietly during Mass. What about older children or adults? What of those who through emotional or physical weariness, age or some other factor are unable to remain awake? Are there not times when even adults might do so without disrespect?

I have been to Masses at geriatric care facilities where individuals sleep through the entire service. To assume these people are being disrespectful or are getting nothing out of the Mass is to presume, superficially, that God only works through experiential or objective reality and not “in the depths” of those individuals who have not enough physical energy left to “remain awake.” Clearly, sleep, in itself, is not disrespectful.

The question, then, in order to adequately address instance 2) is: Can we make some qualitative distinction between the need for sleep present in these homeless individuals and the need of the elderly or chronically ill to do so in care facilities? Clearly, if you are going to make a case against sleeping during a Mass you must be willing to demonstrate when and under what conditions the “rule” is to apply.

Please explain why an elderly person’s inability to remain awake and, therefore, permissive of their falling asleep during Mass, is different from a homeless person’s exhaustion that, in principle, makes their sleep disrespectful?

Let’s be clear, here. What you must show is that homeless people falling asleep in Mass is essentially disrespectful, but elderly people doing so is not. We are not talking about possible specific individuals who may be doing so in some contemptuous manner, because this may also be the case in a care facility, we are talking about this being generally the case. How will you prove this?

 

[dshix]

Okay, let’s address that point as an isolated one. Your contention must be either 1) that it is always disrespectful to sleep in Church or 2) that it is disrespectful in this instance.

Let’s address 1) first. By way of reply let’s consider instances where it may not be disrespectful. I think we would universally accept that a baby or very young child would not be accused of disrespect nodding off quietly during Mass. What about older children or adults? What of those who through emotional or physical weariness, age or some other factor are unable to remain awake? Are there not times when even adults might do so without disrespect?

I have been to Masses at geriatric care facilities where individuals sleep through the entire service. To assume these people are being disrespectful or are getting nothing out of the Mass is to presume, superficially, that God only works through experiential or objective reality and not “in the depths” of those individuals who have not enough physical energy left to “remain awake.” Clearly, sleep, in itself, is not disrespectful.

The question, then, in order to adequately address instance 2) is: Can we make some qualitative distinction between the need for sleep present in these homeless individuals and the need of the elderly or chronically ill to do so in care facilities? Clearly, if you are going to make a case against sleeping during a Mass you must be willing to demonstrate when and under what conditions the “rule” is to apply.

Please explain why an elderly person’s inability to remain awake and, therefore, permissive of their falling asleep during Mass, is different from a homeless person’s exhaustion that, in principle, makes their sleep disrespectful?

Let’s be clear, here. What you must show is that homeless people falling asleep in Mass is essentially disrespectful, but elderly people doing so is not. We are not talking about possible specific individuals who may be doing so in some contemptuous manner, because this may also be the case in a care facility, we are talking about this being generally the case. How will you prove this?

Almost. The way I am looking at it is similar to 1 but not the same.

I say that it is disrespectful to sleep in the Church when your sole reason to go there is sleeping and/or you aren’t really there to adore God.

In this case, it is disrespectful because you really couldn’t care less about God; you are just using His house as a sleeping facility. It takes the focus off of God and puts it on yourself; you are there for your own benefit.

In the case of elderly or the young attending mass falling asleep, the case is obviously the same but because of their disabilities it does not affect them. Children below the age of reason may not be capable to retaining the attention span, nor are they really capable of grasping that fact that they are before God.

The elderly, as well, would be attending mass for the intention of adoring God, but due to disabilities/other reasons may fall asleep in the mass, without it being badly disrespectful.

In both cases they get something out of the mass, because they intended to be there, but are simply limited by their human limitations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is an old argument, but with valid points. One must never think they are practicing virtue when the state takes away what rightfully belongs to them to give to another. Sorry, but the utopian dream of the left wing will never happen on earth and mankind cannot provide the perfect existence for all on the planet. Now God will provide for all who honor Him - but wait - liberalism wants to take Him out of the equation.

The same error can be made in the other direction. That because God will provide for all who honor him then we have no pressing need to be concerned about just distribution of worldly goods. The truth of the matter lies, as with most issues, somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.

You are committing the same error that you are accusing the “liberals” of, extremism. Another problem is that when the state decides on “legitimate” property rights, the presumption is that the state will always act justly. Obviously laws that favor the wealthy or keeping wealth in the hands the “haves” at the expense of the “have nots” are unjust laws.

You do realize that the Church regards the theft by someone bereft of food to feed a starving family as not necessarily being a sinful act? This is because natural justice entails that all human beings have a right to the minimal requirements for life and it would be morally wrong for someone with more than enough food to keep it from others who are starving for it.