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

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Could not the emotional and physical state of the homeless also be the result of human limitations that make it impossible, or nearly so, for them to “attend” to what is going on?
If that is the case, and you would have to prove otherwise, then why is their “resting” state not equally excusable? How do you know for certain the mental state or intention of those sleeping on the pews without having preconceived notions about their “worthiness” or respectfulness?

 

[BroomWagon]

Might not hurt just to inform this church via email that Mr. Sheen’s position on abortion does not seem favorable at least to me as a Catholic and that it’s up at his website. I’ll enclose the link.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

How is it to be known what the “sole reason” of anyone is for going to Mass? It is not possible that individuals could have multiple reasons for carrying out an act? What if a person, on the edge of exhaustion, enters a Church to adore God through the only act left to them to do so, i.e., sleeping peacefully? This would be akin to the Gospel story of the widow who gave the two mites (Mark 12:42). If you recall, she only had two mites or copper coins worth less than a penny to give but Jesus held that she had given more than all the others who gave much more abundantly. Isn’t this a case of those who are “wealthy” with regard to physical or intellectual abilities making a decision about what “counts” as respect in terms of what is “due” to God?
Is it possible that Jesus might find that a homeless person with only dignified sleep to offer to God is, in reality, giving more to the adoration basket than another with an abundance of mental talents who offers only the correct posture but who, otherwise, is neglectful?

I think the warning from Jesus was about judging by appearances. Might that not be possible in this case?

 

[Tigg]

Well, I only dug a little to discover that The Gubbio Project has some very objectionable associations for Catholics - Pax Christi (a dissident Catholic group opposed to the Magisterium) and The Rebecca Project which was finally defunded by the CCHD for supporting abortion rights, working to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and working to defund abstinence only programs (among other agendas contra to Catholic moral teaching.).

sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Coalition-on-Homelessness-beyond-protest-4120451.php

bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/#5

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I only dug a little to discover that The Gubbio Project has some very objectionable associations for Catholics - Pax Christi (a dissident Catholic group opposed to the Magisterium) and The Rebecca Project which was finally defunded by the CCHD for supporting abortion rights, working to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and working to defund abstinence only programs (among other agendas contra to Catholic moral teaching.).

sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Coalition-on-Homelessness-beyond-protest-4120451.php

bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/#5

What precisely are you accusing the Gubbio Project of in terms of “objectionable associations?” Guilt by association does not stand up as having neither legal nor logical implications.

Do you mean Project Gubbio belongs to the Coalition on Homelessness to which other, less than Catholic organizations also belong?

I followed both the links above but see absolutely nothing that can be counted negatively against the project. I see no obvious references to a direct connection between St. Boniface and the Rebecca Project nor to Pax Christi. Could you link directly to these objectionable associations, please?

What are you actually accusing the project of, then? Let’s be clear.

 

[dshix]

Could not the emotional and physical state of the homeless also be the result of human limitations that make it impossible, or nearly so, for them to “attend” to what is going on?
If that is the case, and you would have to prove otherwise, then why is their “resting” state not equally excusable? How do you know for certain the mental state or intention of those sleeping on the pews without having preconceived notions about their “worthiness” or respectfulness?

That is a good point. However, since the homeless are obviously being invited to sleep there, and they are doing so at the invitation of the parish, we can assume with good certainty that they aren’t there to adore, they are there to sleep.

The very act of them sleeping proves they are there to sleep.

How is it to be known what the “sole reason” of anyone is for going to Mass? It is not possible that individuals could have multiple reasons for carrying out an act? What if a person, on the edge of exhaustion, enters a Church to adore God through the only act left to them to do so, i.e., sleeping peacefully? This would be akin to the Gospel story of the widow who gave the two mites (Mark 12:42). If you recall, she only had two mites or copper coins worth less than a penny to give but Jesus held that she had given more than all the others who gave much more abundantly. Isn’t this a case of those who are “wealthy” with regard to physical or intellectual abilities making a decision about what “counts” as respect in terms of what is “due” to God?
Is it possible that Jesus might find that a homeless person with only dignified sleep to offer to God is, in reality, giving more to the adoration basket than another with an abundance of mental talents who offers only the correct posture but who, otherwise, is neglectful?

I think the warning from Jesus was about judging by appearances. Might that not be possible in this case?

You make a very good point from Jesus about judging by appearances, but I contend it does not apply here. We are not judging by appearances, but rather by actions, for we know for a fact that they are coming to the church to sleep, not pray.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is a good point. However, since the homeless are obviously being invited to sleep there, and they are doing so at the invitation of the parish, we can assume with good certainty that they aren’t there to adore, they are there to sleep.

The fact that these individuals were invited by the parish to sleep there does not entail they are not coming also to adore in the most basic way possible to them. If they are invited to sleep, then by respectfully doing just what they were invited to do might, in itself, be an indicator of their sincerity. If I am invited by a home owner who sees me freezing on the street to come into a vestibule to warm up, it would be very presumptuous of me to go into the living room and make myself at home by engaging in family activities going on there without further invitation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My question is, Why stop at 2/3? Surely the homeless can use the remaining 1/3 of the pews as well, no? Their local population would seem to warrant it.

 

[Lawrence178]

My question is, Why stop at 2/3? Surely the homeless can use the remaining 1/3 of the pews as well, no? Their local population would seem to warrant it.

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

 

[dshix]

The fact that these individuals were invited by the parish to sleep there does not entail they are not coming also to adore in the most basic way possible to them. If they are invited to sleep, then by respectfully doing just what they were invited to do might, in itself, be an indicator of their sincerity. If I am invited by a home owner who sees me freezing on the street to come into a vestibule to warm up, it would be very presumptuous of me to go into the living room and make myself at home by engaging in family activities going on there without further invitation.

OK.

Let’s get this straight. We have agreed (I thought) that it is disrespectful for a person to enter a Church with the sole reason of taking a nap, and no intention to worship or even pray.

---

So, for an analogy, let’s say you have a crowd of a thousand people. You know that a few of them are good, practicing Catholics, but most are non-Catholic.

Would it be good practice to give communion to all of them for the purpose of giving communion to the few that are actually not going to be causing a sacrilege by it?

Of course not! The natural intent would be to find out which ones are Catholic and give it to them.

---

In this case, we have an even easier situation. If the Church were to proclaim to the community that all homeless people are welcome to take shelter in the Church to pray, but not sleep, it would greatly decrease the number of people who are entering in an attempt to sleep. Those who are entering to pray, and are obviously praying when they entered, would not be bothered, and those who are entering to sleep, and fall asleep, and be roused and escorted out, (due to their disrespect) by a person guarding the Church.

---

To go back to the analogy:

The majority of those non-catholics, if invited to receive Communion, might not be committing a sin because of their ignorance; but the people offering the Communion would have the sin.

If they are invited to sleep, then by respectfully doing just what they were invited to do might, in itself, be an indicator of their sincerity.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the people who run the Church invite the homeless in to sleep; it doesn’t decrease the disrespect shown to Our Lord at all.

 

[dshix]

Well, I only dug a little to discover that The Gubbio Project has some very objectionable associations for Catholics - Pax Christi (a dissident Catholic group opposed to the Magisterium) and The Rebecca Project which was finally defunded by the CCHD for supporting abortion rights, working to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and working to defund abstinence only programs (among other agendas contra to Catholic moral teaching.).

sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Coalition-on-Homelessness-beyond-protest-4120451.php

bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/#5

A very good point!

What precisely are you accusing the Gubbio Project of in terms of “objectionable associations?” Guilt by association does not stand up as having neither legal nor logical implications.

Not true. Not true at all. You can often know the character of a person by their company; you can just as well with a group of people.

 

[Tigg]

What precisely are you accusing the Gubbio Project of in terms of “objectionable associations?” Guilt by association does not stand up as having neither legal nor logical implications.

Call it whatever you like - red herring/association fallacy – it doesn’t matter to me. It is my personal opinion that the Catholic Church has no business in partnering with groups whose sympathies tend toward anti-Catholic principles. PB XVI recently issued this statement "The Church’s charitable activity at all levels must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance.” Does this fit? I believe it does!

 

[BroomWagon]

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

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.

 

[Tigg]

Inserting a bit of reality here:
(Bolded mine)

**Catholic church in Anchorage changes stance toward homeless **
After years of being tolerant of the homeless, offering them sandwiches and allowing them to come inside and warm up, Father Anthony Patalano’s Sunday message signals a sharp change in direction.

Patalano spoke of the church’s longtime service to the those who live on the streets - from serving them sandwiches to being instrumental in creating the Brother Francis Shelter, Beans Café, Clare House and Covenant House - all programs that serve the homeless. He also said the parish has allowed alcoholics and disturbed people to come on the church grounds, in order to offer assistance.

But the pastor said times have changed.

"The current situation with the alcoholics and the disturbed is far worse than we have experienced in the past. The level of drinking, camping, gathering in groups and disturbances is past the point of toleration. It endangers our safety and inhibits people from coming to our parish," Patalano said.

He also told parishioners he was physically attacked, as well as other two priests. He also spoke of sex acts and drug deals going down on church property - and frustrations over bathrooms being left a mess and the homeless relieving themselves outside.

newsminer.com/article_745b5c6a-a1a0-5079-bb9f-a9c1081bf5bd.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

Call it whatever you like - red herring/association fallacy – it doesn’t matter to me. It is my personal opinion that the Catholic Church has no business in partnering with groups whose sympathies tend toward anti-Catholic principles. PB XVI recently issued this statement "The Church’s charitable activity at all levels must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance.” Does this fit? I believe it does!

You have not demonstrated the manner in which Project Gubbio is actually “partnering” with these other groups and therefore aiding or abetting their practices. As such your claim is specious at best and should not be taken seriously. Show some form of collusion and make your case or stop casting aspersions. I do not believe simply being in the same loosely affiliated association is the same as partnering, otherwise simply being a charitable organization like the others in the association would also be reason for claiming some form of association, which, frankly, is nonsense.

The fact that you haven’t come forth with actual evidence, but simply some nebulous connection via two links that don’t even have the project listed (at least I cannot see it) or in any other manner show questionable activity implies you are merely bolstering a non-existent claim for questionable reasons.

Make your case, I am perfectly wiling to take you seriously when you produce anything that might be called evidence. Remember that bearing false witness or unjustly vilifying a person or organization is also wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Inserting a bit of reality here:
(Bolded mine)

Fine. I credit Father Anthony for making a decision based upon changing circumstances. The principle of subsidiarity - which is a very Catholic way of guiding our actions - entails that decisions such as this should be made at a local level. It also argues against blanket judgements or those made from a distance concerning actions or projects (such as Gubbio) based upon hesitation, fear or lack of moral courage.

When those responsible for Project Gubbio make a reasoned decision concerning its efficacy that will be their right and responsibility. In and of itself, your “bit of reality” may serve to dispense a dose of sober reality, but could also paralyze or deter others from acting in ways the Holy Spirit might lead them. If the Apostles and St. Paul had taken this safer route, it is not clear that the “faith” would have grown in the way that it did. Who precisely are we to have faith in, then? God or our own feelings of security and discomfort?

 

[Peter_Plato]

A very good point!

Not true. Not true at all. You can often know the character of a person by their company; you can just as well with a group of people.

I am not clear how this applies at all.

Being part of a loose coalition of organizations that have the aim of assisting the homeless in SF does not make any damning statement about Project Gubbio. If that is the extent of your “substantial” reason for rejecting what the project does, then your need to prove your point has reached a new depth of desperation.

 

[grotto]

Mentioned early in the thread via a link…
Every weekday the program uses the sanctuary’s rear 76 pews between 6 a.m. and 1 p.m. while providing access to the church’s amenities like bathrooms, blankets, clothing vouchers and haircuts,…

This program has been running for a while now. They are probably dealing with these issues, as well. As another post mentioned, a former homeless man came back in appreication, how it turned his life around. They must be dealing with it well.

---

I’m pretty sure I’ve got a fairly good picture - to pin it down “providing access to the church’s amenities like bathrooms, blankets, clothing vouchers and haircuts” does not mean that the street people are willing to use these amenities. It would be wonderful if they would, and next they could improve on their life problem, etc. Our Lord said “the poor will always be with you”. Mother Theresa certainly knew how to help the people of the street but I’m pretty sure she did not use the space dedicated to the Eucharist in the Tabernacle and the Holy Mass for rows of vagrants to occupy. I think there was poverty and worse all around her neighborhood, but other shelters would have been used. I would think that maintaining the church intact would be made really difficult and would probably result in slowly damaging it greatly. Suggesting that to not allow or encourage this practice is something contrary to Our Lord’s teaching is a stretch. Of course we are to care for the poor but we are to do more than that and FIRST is to love, adore and serve God above all else. So, something is getting mixed up here … and its not a contest about who loves Our Lord better. Thats my sum of it all. :clapping:

 

[CB_Catholic]

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

This is probably one of the most uncharitable remarks in the thread. It is just plain being nasty-no excuse for it.

 

[CB_Catholic]

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.

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.