Detroit, Mich., Nov 27, 2019 / 04:00 am (CNA).- A priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit is facing a lawsuit filed by the parents of a teenager who committed suicide last year.
The parents say Father Don LaCuesta homily at their son’s funeral Mass —during which the priest said multiple times that their son died by suicide, and urged prayers for his soul— caused them “irreparable harm and pain.”
Eighteen-year-old Maison Hullibarger committed suicide Dec. 4, 2018.
On Dec. 8, 2018, LaCuesta celebrated Hullibarger’s funeral Mass at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish in Temperance, Michigan.
Maison’s parents, Jeff and Linda Hullibarger, last week filed a lawsuit against LaCuesta, as well as against the Archdiocese of Detroit and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish, seeking $25,000 in damages.
“No parent, no sibling, no family member should ever, ever have to sit through what we sat through,” the mother said in a Nov. 14 statement released by the family’s attorneys.
In his homily, which the archdiocese released in full, the priest said that suicide is an act against God’s will, but he also emphasized the mercy of God in the face of suicide.
“Because we are Christians, we must say what we know is the truth—that taking your own life is against God who made us and against everyone who loves us,” the priest’s homily text said.
“Our lives are not our own. They are not ours to do with as we please. God gave us life, and we are to be good stewards of that gift for as long as God permits.”
The homily continued: “On most people’s mind, however, especially [those] of us who call ourselves Christians, on our minds as we sit in this place is: Can God forgive and heal this? Yes, God CAN forgive even the taking of one’s own life. In fact, God awaits us with his mercy, with ever open arms.”
“God wants nothing but our salvation but will never force himself on us, he will not save us without us. That’s how much he loves us. Because of the all embracing sacrifice of Christ on the cross God can have mercy on any sin. Yes, because of his mercy, God can forgive suicide and heal what has been broken.”
According to the lawsuit, the Hullibargers met with LaCuesta before the funeral Mass to discuss the service.
The couple says they told him that they wanted the funeral to be a celebration of their son’s life and his kindness, and that they did not tell the priest, or the general public, that their son had committed suicide.
Maison’s father, Jeff, says he approached the pulpit during the homily and asked LaCuesta to “please stop” talking about suicide, according to the lawsuit, but LaCuesta continued his homily.
Monsignor Robert Dempsey, a pastor in Lake Forest, IL and visiting professor of liturgical law at the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein Seminary, told CNA that determining the content of the homily for a funeral Mass is the sole responsibility of the homilist, who must always be a bishop, priest, or deacon.
“Although the homilist is solely responsible for the content of his homily, he is obliged to follow the liturgical norms,” Dempsey told CNA in an email.
The Order of Christian Funerals, the Church’s liturgical norms for funerals, states that the homilist at a funeral Mass ought to be “attentive to the grief of those present.”
“The homilist should dwell on God’s compassionate love and on the paschal mystery of the Lord, as proclaimed in the Scripture readings. The homilist should also help the members of the assembly to understand that the mystery of God’s love and the mystery of Jesus’ victorious death and resurrection were present in the life and death of the deceased and that those mysteries are active in their own lives as well,” the General Introduction to the norms reads.
Dempsey pointed out that the celebrant, “whenever possible…should involve the family in planning the funeral rites” (Order of Christian Funerals, 17), but the content of the homily is ultimately his responsibility, he said.
“Reasonable requests from a family for privacy and sensitivity should be honored; requests that are contrary to the Church’s belief or liturgical discipline should not,” Dempsey said, adding that “no one has a right to hear only those aspects of God’s word they agree with or to receive the sacraments according to their own preference or understanding.”
However, Dempsey said that compassion is important for a preacher.
“In the [Detroit] case, a modicum of common sense and human compassion could have avoided a multitude of woes for all concerned. Weddings are not the appropriate time to preach on the immorality of the contraceptive pill; funerals are not a suitable occasion for preaching about the objective immorality of suicide or uncertainty about final perseverance,” Dempsey said.
The Order of Christian Funerals reads in paragraph 16: “In planning and carrying out the funeral rites the pastor and all other ministers should keep in mind the life of the deceased and the circumstances of death.”
“They should also take into consideration the spiritual and psychological needs of the family and friends of the deceased to express grief and their sense of loss, to accept the reality of death, and to comfort one another.”
Dempsey emphasized that the Church’s norms direct the priest to confer with the family in planning a funeral Mass, and “gives specific indications about the nature of the homily to be preached.”
“Moreover, natural justice and pastoral charity suggest that the priest should respect the family’s wishes for confidentiality about specific facts regarding the deceased’s life and manner [of] death. In cases of suicide, overdose, addiction, the less said the better— even if the family doesn’t specifically request confidentiality,” Dempsey said.
Father Pius Pietrzyk, OP, chair of pastoral studies at St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, California, told CNA that in his view, the immorality of suicide is not preached about enough at funeral Masses.
“I tend to be one who thinks, contrary to the current of public thought, that we don’t preach enough about the immorality of suicide,” he told CNA.
“It is not merciful to tell someone that it’s okay to commit suicide. It’s never merciful to do that. And yet, I think we indirectly do that when we don’t preach strong enough, we don’t make clear enough, the grave immorality of suicide, and the culpability that can be associated with it.”
Father Pietrzyk stressed that we cannot know for certain the state of any deceased person’s soul.
“A priest at a funeral is not preaching to the dead. He’s preaching to the living. And while one ought not in a sermon condemn the soul of the person being buried— no one wants that— a priest shouldn’t dance around the immorality of the issue at stake.”
Father Pietrzyk acknowledged the complicating factor that the manner of the young man’s death was, according to the couple, not widely known before the funeral.
“If this were not widely known in the community, and the couple wanted to keep the details of this less public, I do think a priest should respect that,” he said.
“But if this was widely known in the community that he committed suicide, I think the priest has a moral obligation to touch on the subject. So it just depends on the circumstances of how widely known it was.”
He said he always teaches his students that when preaching a funeral, the priest ought to respect the wishes of the family as much as possible.
The family of a deceased person has no strict civil or canonical rights to compel a priest to preach on a certain topic or not to preach on others, he stressed.
“One doesn’t preach the truth that the family gives; one preaches the truth of the Church,” he said.
“That can involve taking into account the desires and wishes of the family, but it always requires taking on, first and foremost, the mind of Christ and the teachings of the Church.”
Father Pietrzyk said he observes many priests, and even some bishops, fostering a sense of the laity having the right to “control” the liturgy, especially in the context of wedding and funeral Masses. But, he said, the Mass does not belong to “the people,” but to the Church.
“It’s the Church’s expression of prayer and grief for the couple,” he said.
“It doesn’t mean that one ignores the family…one should listen to them attentively. But the wishes of the family cannot supersede the mind of the Church with regards to these matters.”
The Archdiocese of Detroit released a statement on the matter Dec. 17, 2018.
“Our hope is always to bring comfort to situations of great pain, through funeral services centered on the love and healing power of Christ. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case. We understand that an unbearable situation was made even more difficult, and we are sorry,” the statement read.
“We…know the family was hurt further by Father’s choice to share Church teaching on suicide, when the emphasis should have been placed more on God’s closeness to those who mourn.”
The archdiocese also announced that for the “foreseeable future,” LaCuesta will not be preaching at funerals and he will have all other homilies reviewed by a priest mentor. In addition, the archdiocese said, he has agreed to “pursue the assistance he needs in order to become a more effective minister in these difficult situations.”
The Hullibarger family has said that LaCuesta tried to keep Maison’s parents from giving a eulogy for their son during the Mass, even though “that had been agreed on well in advance,” according to the Detroit Free Press.
The archdiocese has not commented on the allegation that LaCuesta agreed to allow the Hullibargers to eulogize their son, and then changed his mind.
The Church’s norms officially prohibit the practice of giving eulogies during a funeral Mass, but Monsignor Dempsey said the Church’s liturgical norms offer the possibility of a member or a friend of the family to speak in remembrance of the deceased following the prayer after communion and before the final commendation begins.
He said the possibility of offering a “remembrance” is often determined by diocesan statute.
“The Catholic funeral is not a ‘celebration of life’ of the deceased, but a celebration of the baptized believer’s participation in the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Dempsey explained.
“The words of ‘remembrance’ should be brief and should focus on how the deceased bore witness in his [or] her life to what we profess in the paschal mystery.”
The funeral norms for the Archdiocese of Detroit acknowledge the possibility of a ‘remembrance’ at Mass in keeping with the OCF norms, but emphasizes that “those words should not be a eulogy.” The Detroit norms also state that the Vigil for the Deceased, or the memorial luncheon or reception that often follows the funeral, is an appropriate place for family and friends to offer their own words or stories.
Whether or not it was a ‘remembrance’ at the Mass that LaCuesta promised the family rather than a eulogy, and whether or not LaCuesta later tried to prevent them from doing so, remains unclear.
Following the funeral, the Hullibargers had complained to the Archdiocese of Detroit, asking that LaCuesta be removed.
The Hullibargers said in the lawsuit that they were granted a meeting with Archbishop Allen Vigneron after the funeral, but claim that the archbishop cut the meeting short when the mother began discussing Father LaCuesta.
Father Pietrzyk also said that in his view, the civil lawsuit should is not likely to succeed because “no court, not in Michigan, not in federal court, and certainly not the Supreme Court, is going to sustain this kind of tort action, and they’re certainly never going to require the Church to remove a particular priest.”
“The couple might have legitimate disagreements with the homily and the way the funeral was treated, but the idea that this is a legal matter, the idea that the courts should be getting involved in this, is just contrary to all of the Constitutional precedence of the US. It’s not going to go anywhere, and nor should it,” he commented.
“Even if one is sympathetic to [the couple’s] plight, as one should be sympathetic to the plight of any parent who’s lost a child, the question of the civil, legal rights is another matter. So I do think one can and must criticize the civil lawsuit, even if one has a great deal of sorrow and sympathy for the couple.”
Father LaCuesta declined to comment to CNA on the ongoing case, referring questions to the archdiocese.
[…]
The Catholic Thing, Dec, 9 – If one is right, the other is wrong.
Former Catholic doing what she does best: using her elected office in government to destroy all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches. I suspect that Nancy studied at the feet of William Tecumseh Sherman. Good work, Nancy.
Sherman did not destroy all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Sadly, although he was baptized and raised by an adoptive family that was strongly Catholic, after some years he did not practice the Faith and disagreed with the Church. But his wife was extremely devout and active and the children were all sent to Catholic schools. One of his sons became a priest, though that caused Sherman some bitterness, bit he never sought to destroy the Church’s beliefs or teachings.
Kindly don’t insult him by comparing Pelosi to him.
Yes. He was instrumental in defeating the Confederacy and ending the Civil War after all. That’s kind of a big deal. His biographies are interesting reading.
What I always find interesting is the contemporary southerner women shrieking, “He’s a beast and a monster!” and yet you see story after story about how they mouthed off to him, and lived to tell the tale. Some monster.
Yes, I agree about his biographies. They are very interesting.
There is a charming story about his meeting 4-year-old Juliette Gordon Low in Savannah at the end of the war; her father was a captain in the Confederate army, and her mother’s brothers were serving in the US Army. Sherman was a friend of one of them and went to see Mrs. Gordon to give her messages from her family. Juliette and her sister had been curious about seeing “Old Sherman” in the march through Savannah the previous day, and their mother told Sherman so, while the little girls each protested that it was the other who had called him that. Sherman laughed, and then talked to and entertained the little girls for hours.
And before the war Sherman was in charge of what later became Louisiana State University. In one battle one of his former staff members was captured, and Sherman introduced him to someone as “This is (whatever the name was); he thinks he’s a Confederate officer but he’s really my professor of ancient languages.”
General Sherman may not have destroyed all things Catholic but he sure left a path of misery and destruction behind him.
I think his son who became a Catholic priest is buried in Grand Coteau, Louisiana next to a close relative of the Confederate Vice President.
We read: “Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, called the act a ‘historic step forward in Democrats’ fight to defend the dignity and equality of every American.’”
Nice touch, that. This “historic” step in the most recent microseconds of human history! For talking heads, the notion now that some states can impose their rites (vs “rights”?) on other states, and even on the real rights of individual citizens (“equality of every American”) of other states? Constitution, what Constitution?
Wondering here if Her Majesty has witlessly teed up the ball (so to speak) for the inevitable Constitutional court case? Recalling not only Justice Thomas, but also Chief Justice Roberts in his earlier dissent to Obergefell v Hodges (2015): “Do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
We might as well notice, too, whether the issue is no longer fenced-in to the redefinition of “marriage”? (And, such an insult to all members of the human race by insinuating an equivalence to interracial marriage!)
So. . .Is the real issue now about the redefinition of the nation-state, itself? The “state” now mutated into a lapdog in the Pavlovian hands of an unnatural mindset in all of its slippery-slope mutations? Does the redefined state now exist simply to salivate over and ratify a full range of possible redefinitions (“fatwas”?): gay marriage, but also polygamy, and then polyamorous block parties, and eventually even beastiality?
Pelosi’s open-ended redefinition of marriage, butt now especially the “state”: the tail wagging the dog?
It’s a very sad state of affairs where this has gone and of course Biden will sign since he’s a Catholic in name only, like Pelosi. But don’t worry, God is not mocked and what’s coming to America will show that you do not mess with God and His commandments !
I’m sure Biden will not sign since he is a devout Catholic….it would go against everything he has been taught since his youth and am sure he sought the advice and counsel of the Pope.
At the very least, Biden is at this moment consulting with his bishop (Washington or Wilmington????) about what a FAITHFUL Catholic ought to do. I’m certain that his episcopal advisor will show him the moral high road to take. We are all in good hands when we first consult our bishops when faced with weighty moral issues.
My Eposicial adviser is from Germany!
Didn’t his mother threaten/tell off a nun because of something that happened at his school, or do I have that story mixed up?
He always talked about taking Trump out behind the school gymnasium.
Opening a pandora’s box.
Pelosi conflated this bill with the decision in Dobbs, as if the two were related. Oh, wait, they are related. Both cases promote immorality. Once again, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger comes to mind. Later voted Pope Benedict XVI, he stated, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” No matter how many people think something is right, it doesn’t make it so.
Maybe someone in her family will utilize, possibly……………………
If the hierarchy had gone all-in on the promotion of NFP, especially in their hospitals systems, then they might not be where they find themselves.
Is NFP conscious, deliberate birth control? Just asking.
It depends on how you define “birth control.” NFP is not contraception, unless you want to consider abstaining from sex contraception.
.
Observing a women’s fertility signs and then making a decision about whether to engage in, or not engage in, procreative activity does not offend the Church’s (God’s) prohibition on contraception
NFP is not contraception.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman – yesterday today tomorrow – forever, and the nonsense which the ‘catholics’ and their pals in the house and senate insist in indulging in will NOT change that.
The ‘respect for marriage act’ – what a mockery.
“Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who would kill the body for they cannot kill the soul. Instead fear Him who is able to destroy both the soul and body in Hell.” The fact that Americans no longer fear the Lord will lead to the destruction of this nation from within and without in one years time.
Some years ago as Vice President Biden performed a gay”wedding” ceremony – with scarcely any response by the bishops. For decades, politicians have trumpeted their Catholic identity while vigorously promoting abortion and same sex marriage. Few have faced any consequences from the Church. They continue to receive Communion and are virtually immune to any correction from the Church. The Archbishop of Washington is notably reluctant to uphold Church teaching in these areas.
And when Pelosi, Biden, et. al. die,they can expect an elaborate Catholic funeral as Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, etc. received.
I cannot help wondering if our bishops simply prefer peace, unity (and perhaps popularity) to the truth. Or, do they not believe the teaching of the Church themselves?
Looking everyday that the “Catholic Church” may not be the true church it claims to be. A modern day synagogue of satan as Jesus would say.
If the Catholic Bishops would only become politically vocal on the moral issues of the day instead of cowardly shying from the public square this country could be turned around in short order. I blame the Catholic Bishops, not Catholic politicians ignorant of the Faith, for the passage of this same sex marriage bill.
Half the annual budget of the USCCB comes from the Feds. “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
Honestly, if the Church lost her 5013c tax status and lost her ability to get federal funds, that might be one of the best things to happen to her
Does the ‘Respect for Marriage’ law say as to whether or not it is going to ‘discriminate’ against man-boy-lovers, marriage to animals, or marriage to inanimate objects?
I can clearly see the legal problems with the ‘Respect for marriage’ law. Let us take a look at the pregnant 41 year old school teacher having sex with her 15 year old student. Even in jail for doing so, she now would have a right to marry her 15 year old lover, “to put the family back together”. The ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’ Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Marxist Democrats next step is to help her fight ‘unconstitutional’, ‘age discrimination’, Federal laws which stand in the way of her ‘right’ to marry the one she loves.
After the school teacher wins her battle for her “rights”, it will be 50 year old male man-boy-lovers wanting to marry their 5 year old lovers.
https://youtu.be/ZnKB9NzgD4k
Florida teacher charged with having sex with student, 15, is now pregnant
https://nypost.com/2021/10/11/florida-teacher-pregnant-after-being-arrested-for-having-sex-with-student/
What ever happened to the sanctity of the sacrament of Matrimony?
Agreed. If the Catholic Bishops cannot be vocal on moral issues, what really is their purpose?
All these silly little people will someday be called to account, and they will have much to answer for.
The Church is the moral compass for Catholics—not the Federal government. The Church defines marriage for Catholics—-not the Federal government. Whatever happens in Washington DC never changes the teachings of the Church. Church leaders do not make policy in the Federal government and politicians do not make policy for the Church. Anyone who thinks the Church and the Federal government are equals are creating a golden calf. Catholics only pledge allegiance to God and nobody else. The Federal government should be ignored because it never dictates how Catholics are to live their lives.
People listen to the government because they keep writing out checks.
Government money is certainly a large part of this. That and human respect.
What will matter in the end is the question as to whether or not our church leaders have a spine. Or will they all simply cave in, in a heap as they did when it was demanded they close our churches for covid? ( Note: I am almost 70, have experienced covid twice. Clearly, I am not dead!) My point being, the feds can pass any law they want, fine you however much they want. In the end, they cannot FORCE you to do anything against your will. Unless you fear their penalties more than God. Pick your side. The disgusting and poisonous DEMs, or God. It really is that simple. If we lose our tax status, so what? A smaller church might be a better, more devout one. Close the catholic hospitals and schools if we must and see how easily the govt fills in the gap. If they can. What to do if we are sued in an effort to force the hiring of sexually inappropriate folks to become Catholic school teachers and church employees?? Say no. If indeed they shut us down, what can be done? Well, I think if I write a weekly invitation to my priest to celebrate Mass in my PRIVATE home ( as in the days of the old church in Rome)I will invite my friends too, and nobody else. What can they do about that? Nothing. End of story. There are ways to accomplish anything. All it takes is a spine and a will, and willingness to stand up for what you believe no matter WHAT the talking pin-heads are saying.
Amen, LJ!
I wish our bishops had the spirit, the faith and the love of our Lord Jesus that you do!
I don’t mean to be “digging at” the Holy Father. The Holy Father did say to legalize homosexual “civil union” and he has not retracted it. He hasn’t even said if the video of that, that was released, was made public with or without his permission or if it is a fraud in some manner.
What is to be made of it?
Man does not have power to legalize unnaturalness and abominations and the Pope has neither the power as Pope nor mandate for any such thing.
“Minutes before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, called the act a ‘historic step forward in Democrats’ fight to defend the dignity and equality of every American.'”
Nancy Pelosi isn’t a Catholic. She is a heretic.
“DOMA, which the bill would repeal, is a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that defined marriage federally as the union of a man and a woman, reserved federal benefits to heterosexual couples, and permitted states not to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states. DOMA was already effectively nullified by the 2013 and 2015 Supreme Court decisions United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.”
The government (including the courts) has no power or authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is a matter of nature and was defined and instituted by God and is regulated by God and His Church – i.e. the Catholic Church.
To be validly married not only words, but also consummation is necessary. This is a matter of divine and natural law. It should be obvious that consummation is only possible between a physically mature male and female.
As far as I can tell, government is becoming more evil as time goes on. The rot is very deep and much of it appears to be very well hidden (e.g. not publicized) – and it is not confined to the federal government.
The Democrats – and some Republicans – have blood on their hands. They will be held accountable before God.
As Catholics ought to know, those guilty of unrepented mortal sin will go to Hell.
“Nancy Pelosi isn’t a Catholic. She is a heretic.”
She is a baptized Catholic. By all indications, she’s a very bad Catholic who holds to heretical views about life, sexuality, the human person, etc.