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.
[…]
To the bishops of Colorado: The People have spoken. Those who violated Federal law by invading our country, need to leave NOW. You bishops need to respect the will of the people and not interfere with what is NOT in your purview.
We Catholics DO support immigrants coming to the USA but we will NOT support people violating our laws to come here.
In addition, the bishops of the USA have forfeited their moral position in the Church with their sexual abuse of minors and other vulnerable persons and also covering up the abuse by other clerics. It’s time for the bishops to do public penance before they can ever recover the right to lecture others.
Absolutely. Well said.
Excellent points!
The validity of one’s office is not dependent on his morality.
In what world do you live in? Progressive bishops have absolutely forfeited their credibility. There is no authentic office without a moral and spiritual foundation behind it. Once again, your commitment to leftist ideologies is compromising your judgment.
God doesn’t recognize our man-made southern border. God does recognize how we treat people.
GERALD: Christ also said to his disciples: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
It’s not a good idea to speak for God; Christ did that already.
God certainly does recognize borders. Read the Bible.
I read the Bible. Christ instructs us to love each other as He loves us.
Indeed. We should follow the Vatican loving (sarcasm) example. No open borders.
“Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
There are legal avenues for immigration. We cannot take care of the entire world that wants to come here and our own, safely and effectively and at the rate they are pooring in. Absolutely unsustainable. Get real. Prices for goods and housing gave skyrocketed since Biden’s open borders. My friend is being evicted come the first of the month because his full-time job can’t pay the rent plus other bills. That’s who I care about. He has bought an ice tent . It’s tough here in Denver. 40k illegals have contributed to the rising rents here. Would you want to live in an ice tent in February?
God might not, but a sovereign government and its rightful citizens can and must recognize and defend our national borders. We should treat illegal aliens for what they are – individuals who are in violation of the law. The government’s first responsibility is to its citizens, not to law breakers.
Granted our Southern border has a dodgy creation history but to be fair so did Spain’s acquisition of land.
I don’t know how the title to my home and land are recognized by God but I’m pretty sure in this temporal world they belong to me legally and lawfully.
Yes, we will be held accountable for how we treat each other but scripture also instructs us to respect those in authority. I believe we can do both at the same time.
Unfortunately God does recognize nations, borders, races, tribes, families (subsidiary) even though He calls all men of all nations to come unto Him, to know Jesus is to know peace, peace among all men of good will.
Your comment is completely correct but lacks insight and balance. Conflating civil laws with assumptions of family separation is illogical. Given the crisis orchestrated, a dramatic response is required. Our church should use it’s own resources to do the work you speak of. Too easy to claim moral superiority and use government funds to do what you feel best for the underprivileged. When the GOOD bishops refuse government funding and use their own money and prayers they will be rewarded for speaking the truth in love.
So, Gerald. Does God recognize the fentanyl that pours in across the southern border and kills our people by the thousands?
How about the children who are trafficked or the mentally disturbed who will end up homeless?
Should I assume you’re in favor of this?
Thousands of American businessmen welcome these migrants with open arms because they work hard for a low wage. Thousands of American businessmen are getting rich using these illegals. It’s all about money.
So, Gerald, why then do you seem to condone the open borders which our president is proceeding to close?
Of course we welcome hardworkers. A work ethic is a very good thing and should be rewarded but we can’t continue to keep our workforce afloat through criminal trafficking cartels.
There should be a way to work on our visa and immigration policies so more decent people can come here to work legally and without profiting organized crime.
Does God recognize the wall that surrounds the Vatican City State and which the Pope guards jealously enough to reinforce the penalties against those who encroach on Vatican territory? If Pontiff Francis gets to establish his borders against unwanted intruders, why not the USA? I smell hypocrites galore in our Roman Catholic Church.
The moral treatment of people includes sane policies of regulating human migration, sane policies controlling sex trafficking, sane policies of stopping harmful drugs from entering the nation, and ending the exploitation of desperate people, and not taking refuge in sentimentality, the exact opposite of which is brought about by open borders.
@Gerald: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”
That would include protecting people like Laiken Riley and people like the woman lit on fire on a subway in NY and all the families who lost loved ones to fentanyl. Help the migrant yes but using a little wisdom by having a secure border with a comprehensive immigration policy. I don’t think God wants us to check our brains at the door.
Comprehensive policy – 1. allows people to understand with confidence even certainty at times, how best to mobilize, 2. requires broad-based inputs as well as specialist and 3. needs preparation and good personnel bringing through the policies in various areas in ways that also withstand scrutiny.
Some of it is bare-bones brainstorming: how many doctors do you want, how many labourers, how many train engineers, how many gross numbers per year, etc.
The existing legal and bureaucratic regime will most likely not reach to anything like this and more likely will get in the way of anything and everything at will.
And how they treat us. We used to believe in the Golden Rule.
Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s. Render unto GOD what is GOD’s.
Ceaser / US government has the right to establish the conditions on how a non-citizen enters the country. Breaking the laws, does not give you the right to stay in a country you blanketly have no respect for. Being here, expecting all your living expenses paid for by the legal citizens is theft. While the bishops and governors look the other way, we taxpayers do not have the budget for increasing expenses.
Impressive statement, exemplifying the balance it encourages.
Colorado bishops are not acting out of the bounds of justice on the immigration issue. Many of the migrants passed through the border in context of cooperation by the Biden administration’s policy of offering a form of permission including the CBP One app. Also with a policy of refusal to close the border, the offer of financial, and other support upon arrival.
We are responsible to persons, the unity of families who crossed the border because of a wrongful policy in force at the time. Such migrants are themselves not entirely culpable and deserve a more compassionate response to their situation. Unfortunately, we are in effect morally obliged to make reparation for the sins of the Biden administration.
We are under no obligation to illegal aliens. We are not responsible to them or for them. They are not entitled to assistance or support of any kind. Illegal aliens are here ILLEGALLY. They have broken the law. The only responsibility we have is to deport them immediately.
Careful there, the food you put in your mouth or the milk you drink may have been handled by an illegal.
Americans will not/can not do a lot of work that migrants are glad to.
I’m not for illegal immigration but they do a lot of our ag work.
Granted. But that doesn’t mean they should be here illegally.
Demonstrably untrue. Americans did ALL of those jobs until the last 3 or so decades. They will do them NOW if paid enough per hour. The excess number of illegals willing to work for sub-par wages is exactly the reason wages have stagnated for decades. What business owner in his right mind would pay a worker $25 an hour if they can get away with $12?
As for the Bishops, funny they have plenty to say to Americans who object to their nation being invaded, but appear to have nothing to say to the law breakers who sneak over our boarders, often using stolen identities. Then going on public welfare at an immense cost to their “host” country which then struggles to care for its own native born poor. They burden our hospitals and our schools. Eventually , these excessively needy illegals will bring the entire country to the same indigent level as the countries they fled. It is also not true that all of them are here seeking honest work. Far too many have proved to be violent criminals, sex traffickers, drug pushers, gang members, etc. No thanks. I stand with Trump. Send them back. Our nation provides billions in foreign aid. They are not allowed to come here and destroy our country as well.
It’s gonna be an issue; you can’t just shut down our food supply because honest, hard working people are caught on a technicality.
This is one article from newsweek and there are many on the internet:
With Nearly Half of U.S. Farmworkers Undocumented, Ending Illegal Immigration Could Devastate Economy
Published Apr 21, 2021 at 12:38 PM EDT
Updated Apr 23, 2021 at 10:47 AM EDT
How much do you want your food to go up? – I’m telling you most Americans will not/cannot pick strawberries, apples or do any farm manual labor if it were $30 per hour. How much do migrants make picking strawberries in CA an hour – a lot — how many Americans are applying to pick strawberries – not a lot I’ll bet.
LJ, I would agree that US citizens *should* be able do those low paying agricultural jobs but it’s not going to happen any time soon.
Some years ago our state enlisted convicts to pick vegetables when there was a shortage of seasonal workers and it was a disaster. The workers from Latin America spend through the rows leaving the convicts behind in the dust. Inmates appreciate being outside in the fresh air and having opportunities to earn money. It wasn’t slave labor or the chain gang but they were pretty bad at picking onions. Maybe with practice they could keep up.Who knows?
Some countries enlist high school students to pick crops.
It’s fine to have seasonal foreign workers but they need to come here lawfully. And we could probavly automate more harvesting of crops also.
“honest, hard working people are caught on a technicality. ”
The “technicality” is entering a country illegally, thus breaking the law. Their very first action reveals their contempt for the laws of the United States: “If I want to do something, the law doesn’t matter.” That isn’t honest, whatever about hard working.
Who said Nazism was dead?
There is another reason Americans are partly responsible for the reason so many immigrants need to leave their countries in South America. It’s all the money Americans have spent on illegal drugs going all the way back to the 60’s which line the pockets of the cartels building them up and, in a sense, supporting criminal activities. I saw an interview with a very famous rock star who said in her lifetime she spent perhaps a million dollars on cocaine. I wonder if she ever gave it any thought to the blood that is now on her hands.
I want to express my gratitude to CWR and its editor for publishing this article, one showing how carefully balanced and morally responsible our bishops can be (and typically are, without always receiving credit where credit is due). It is important that all bishops and pastors urge the faithful to not only support the government in proper goals but also in how they arrive in achieving them. It is of course morally correct to shut down illegal immigration but NOT in a manner that more cruel than necessary (heartache is inevitable but treating them like animals is not) or with an antipathy that is violates the law of charity. Recognize and deal firmly with the evils but do not give in to fearmongering (as if we were being invaded by a race of orcs) nor to excess (e.g., any kind of deportation process that is so hasty that families that had been together are separated by our own officials without bringing them together again before sending them off).
Don’t presume that you have a monopoly on compassion. You judge others harshly and prematurely. What you write smacks of an elitism unworthy of any Christian. Yours is not the only way to go about solving a problem that was created by others.
A defensive nerve has been touched that you need to take to spiritual direction as a close reading my my text not warrant your presumption. However, what I have said does apply to you personally if you knowingly support our currrent president unconditionally even though at times he has been unnecessarily cruel on this particular issue, as testified to by his own White House officials (some of whom left because they refused to break laws for him). Most recently, our President shut down a family reunification program tasked with finding children separated by our own government (due to haste, bureaucratic bungling, whatever the cause) from their parents before they are deported. He is also not a thoughtful Chrisitian as he has always opposed comprehensive immigration reform, focusing only on the punitive side even when other measures provide both border security and while respecting the human dignity of those that need to be sent back or get to the back of the line. He has never entertained a legal, controlled guest worker program (even ones proposed by conservative Republican leaders) and has sabotaged DACA relief even when most conservatives wanted a soluton that is both just and merciful. Beware of nativism and tribalism. Be a patriot, not a nationalist. One is a virtue, the other disposition is one of the favorite playthings of the devil for splintering Christian unity (for 500 years and going strong). As to “my” solution that you speak of, I’m trying to hew to the USCCB consensus (which is NOT remotely the same as Pope Francis’ naive approach challenged by many Eastern European cardinals); I doubt you have a better one, at least if it means supporting any politician whose ideas ignore the bishops’ rational and compasssionate guidelines. Take care, brother, if you are selling your soul to a populist nationalist approach that is more driven by anxiety and contempt than careful consideration and articulation of Catholic social doctrine (which is not some post-conciliar invention).
yes, you cannot shake an illegal’s hand before Communion then beat the out of them while arresting them in the parking lot, but you can arrest them if that’s your job.
I have not seen anyone suggest that “beating” them is ok. That feels like yet another untrue leftist accusation which will be repeated over and over until enough uninformed minions believe it.
I’m speaking from a Catholic Christian perspective – these people have souls.
Well, if they have souls and a functioning conscience, they should not be breaking the law by entering the country illegally, since that would be considered a sin.
Of course they have souls knowall. I hear you. We can secure our border without needlessly demeaning others. I wish I could hear more balance about that from people. It’s a shame. Most folks who come here would be assets if they’d just come in the right way.
I am sure that over the next four years we are going to see CWR posting CNA articles by bishops on Trump’s immigration policy. That does not make it any less frustrating. ( Frustrating articles, not frustrating that CWR posts them).
The bishops say that nations are entitled to strong borders, which seems to mean that we can try to stop illegals from crossing, but if they do manage to cross we cannot send them back. Not a very honest position.
President Trump signed a list of pro-life executive orders after the March For Life yesterday, after already freeing the pro-life demonstrators from jail. It would be nice if the bishops would issue a comprehensive statement on that.
And, maybe mentioning that these reversed pro-abortion executive orders issued by Biden.
I would guess that most people have words or phrases that they get tired of hearing. I am tired of the bishops saying “welcome the stranger” when what they mean is don’t send illegals back to their country of origen. We do welcome the stranger. We welcome on average one million legal strangers (immigrants) every year.
The bishops did mention unaccompanied children and drugs coming across the border, but it seems that these are just mentioned in passing.
As the bishops always mention, they want “comprehensive immigration reform” without ever stating what particular “reforms” they want. What they seem to want is citizenship for the illegals, or, in the language of their 2024 voting guide, “unauthorized newcomers.”
I believe it is going to be a long four years of these types of statements from the bishops.
“Drug smuggling and human trafficking are on the rise because of the open border policy”
The reason for Freemason Biden’s policy.
“Mass deportation is not the solution to our present situation in the United States, especially when it may separate parents and children,” the bishops said.
But children won’t be separated from their parents. Entire families will be deported together, as they should be. Problem solved!
From a legal standpoint I would say you have to use your discretion. That is the general law anyway. Make a list. I’ll give an example. This is not exhaustive.
Many came in authentic pursuit of a more humane life and used the openings made available to them. They can be full of good will and don’t necessarily vote Democrat ultimately.
A large portion of some measure want to be in the “Democrat system” and be hinge points for the rest of their lives and they tend to be mixed in with “radicals”.
“Radicals” -narcotics contacts, Pink Tide, terrorism cells, criminals active for hire, other subversive elements.
There will inevitably be some past criminals genuinely hoping for a new beginning, but likely this is a very small group.
When there are minors and dependents involved in “bad” and “risk” groups you still should act with delicacy. An area for diplomatic measures and new relations/funding with regional neighbours.
‘ ….. Covering the news is a labor-intensive enterprise, and the number of media actually attempting to do it—especially in the national and international sectors—has always been comparatively small and is getting smaller all the time. Newsrooms have shrunk. Foreign and domestic bureaus have closed right and left as an economy measure. In the news business now, fewer and fewer are trying to do more and more with less and less.
…..
Speaking at meeting in Rome, Helen Osman, the top communication official of the U.S. bishops’ conference, says that “to understand the culture of the United States and how the Church can present the faith within that culture, it is important to realize that the adoption of digital communications is fundamentally changing the culture.” Quite so. In the end, moreover, it doesn’t matter greatly whether people get their news on a printed page or a screen. But it does matter that they get it—and that it be timely, accurate, honest, and fair. Religious leaders, just like other leaders in society, need to worry about that. ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/05/29/the-mixed-state-of-the-changing-media/
I understand your points, but people’s motives oe desires are not under consideration here. If people want to establish a new life here, there is a legal process for them to do that. Breaking the law is unacceptable, even if people are seeking a better life.
So give a legal process and see who stays.
You’ve inherited a negative situation, make it positive.
A lot of it is already in hands who will hide it, uncover it.
Diamond in the rough full of opportunity shining bright.
There is good reason for setting in new legal processes. The situation is novel and it has different dimensions. Some things to do with borders; some with ICE in non-border States; some with Homeland Security; some with temporary provision of basic social services one way then another then another; some with personnel management and differentiation; some with probationary status and agency accessibility of those under management; etc.
If documented, if undocumented. Qualifying levels. Pre-qualifying levels. I would pass separate laws addressing different things and creating different processing tracks. This or that track could involve elective options for those under management in that area. I stress, separate statutes.
There is also sound LEGAL reason for new laws. The Supreme Court recently revoked the Chevron rule so that it is a whole new field for review of administrative act. This brings up also changing existing personnel. While a certain level of fidelity can be expected from Texas staffing, the bureaucratic and quasi-bureucratic status quo in the hinterland is working with its own vision that is going to fight very hard not to become outdated and to remain relevant and in charge.
Most importantly, without a knowable plain and simple fair and square legal procedural backdrop you already offend rules of natural justice. And you’ll lose in court.
‘ Skidmore Deference Survives: Under Loper, courts must exercise their “independent judgment” in reviewing agency regulations. However, the Court left Skidmore deference in place. Under that doctrine, courts may still defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if the interpretation has the “power to persuade.”
A New Form of Deference for Express Delegations of Authority?: It is unclear the extent to which Loper will impact agency regulations promulgated pursuant to express delegations of authority by Congress. The Court explained that, while it is the court’s duty to interpret federal statutes, the best reading of a statute “may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion.” In those cases, “the role of the reviewing court under the APA is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.” Loper explained that courts fulfill their “judicial function” in these cases by: (1) recognizing “constitutional delegations” of authority; (2) fixing the boundaries of the delegated authority; and (3) “ensuring the agency has engaged in reasoned decision-making within those boundaries.” The Court did not explain, however, if this is a different test than the judiciary’s duty to “say what the law is,” and if it is, when it should be applied.
Opens Door to Challenges: We anticipate a significant uptick in new lawsuits challenging agency regulations across sectors. It remains unclear, however, how courts will apply Loper in the context of particular statutory schemes and without more specific guidance from the Supreme Court. ‘
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-doctrine-what-you-need-know
Psalm 106:33 They so embittered his spirit that rash words crossed his lips. 34 They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them 35 But mingled with the nations and imitated their ways.
Obama deported 3 million illegals, more than Trump did in his first term. Somehow, that didn’t get the pushback that Trump is getting now.
It’s a sure bet that none of these Colorado Bishops will ever be named a Cardinal while Francis is Pope.
Me again.
Some may want to check out “If bishops want to be heard on immigration . . . “, Catholic Culture, Jan. 24, 2025.