J
JulianN
Guest
Perhaps they were concerned he would be unable to give a homily without constantly mentioning the cause of death —information to which the entire congregation is not actually entitled.
When Fr. LaCuesta met with the parents to discuss his homily, did he ask them about the cause of death? I don’t know, my only source of information is the AP news report, and it doesn’t say whether he did or didn’t ask them that. And if he did ask, what answer did they give? All we know is, in the words of the AP reporter, “The Bedford, Michigan, family had not disclosed the nature of the youth’s death to the priest, according to the suit.”Perhaps they were concerned he would be unable to give a homily without constantly mentioning the cause of death —
Well, it seems that they either did not disclose the cause of death, in which case the priest was presumptuous. Or they did disclose it and asked him not to mention it.When Fr. LaCuesta met with the parents to discuss his homily, did he ask them about the cause of death? I don’t know, my only source of information is the AP news report, and it doesn’t say whether he did or didn’t ask them that. And if he did ask, what answer did they give? All we know is, in the words of the AP reporter, “The Bedford, Michigan, family had not disclosed the nature of the youth’s death to the priest, according to the suit.”
They state in their lawsuit that they did not disclose it to him.Or they did disclose it and asked him not to mention it.
Well, if that’s true, he was definitely out of line. Why would he think he had the right to disclose the cause of death to an entire congregation?They state in their lawsuit that they did not disclose it to him.
Too bad we don’t know the content of the homily that the parents think they “ordered” but didn’t receive.It doesn’t really matter. It wasn’t his business to disclose—and the homily is properly about the readings. He had no business discussing the cause of death.