The CBS story is marginally better: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/18/homeless-saint-marys-cathedral-archdiocese-san-francisco-intentionally-drenched-

The CBS story is marginally better: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/18/homeless-saint-marys-cathedral-archdiocese-san-francisco-intentionally-drenched-water-sleeping/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/18/homeless-saint-m... The mind boggles, though. It's not just against doctrine. (It is against Catholic doctrine. Slam-dunkingly so. If you put a question about it on a religious education test, it would be the easiest question in 2000 years. If you polled Catholic theologians, you would literally find more support for atheism than for this decision.) It's also -- and this is the part which honestly confuses me -- strikingly out of character for the politics of the people that get selected to make purchasing decisions for cathedrals. The institutional Church has a pretty well-known slant on this. It is generally modestly-to-severely left of where doctrine obligates them to be. You'd expect the ones in San Francisco (of all places!) to be at-or-near the farthest extreme left of political positions on homelessness possible in the United States. How is it blinking possible that someone signed a PO for a system which is not just anathema it's the particular, caricatured type of anathema which is associated with one's mortal political enemies?