Shining a light on truth vs. comforting the grieving? Funeral homily in cases of suicide

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrsdizzyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarcelle said:
Think of the context in which it is being said. It’s a bit too little too late isn’t it?
Click to expand...
It’s late for the person who took his own life. It isn’t for everyone else. That is the point. The instruction is for the living.
Sarcelle said:
The young man is dead and I’m sure the family may be feeling guilt thinking they could or should have done something. Along comes this priest lecturing them.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a lecture. I don’t see a condemnation of them. To interpret the words that way is highly uncharitable. The family may be thinking that but it isn’t right thinking. While they may be grieving that isn’t an excuse to act or think badly. It is something to fight and not something to give in to.

A question I have about the whole thing is why did this become public knowledge? Why did the family give interviews to the press? They are so despondent but they want to talk to the press? I’ve met people like this before.
 
Last edited:
I said lecture and you equated that to condemnation. Lecture does not equate to condemnation.

I do not see why you called me uncharitable when I nowhere said that the priest was condemning the family. You were the one that mentioned the word condemnation not me.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
Father, please explain what was wrong with the homily. I have read it and I thought it was very good.
Click to expand...
I question the value of my doing that on this forum.

Knowing this forum as well as I do, dissecting this homily line by line will only lead to more attempts on the part of some posters to defend what is, in fact, indefensible. It will only protract a discussion that, at this point, is serving no useful purpose.

The tone of this thread in recent posts is attempting to positively spin this priest’s failed pastoral care for this bereaved family.

The judge of this priest is his Archbishop. The fate of this priest is in his Archbishop’s hands…no one else’s.

The Archbishop has acted and he has determined that this priest failed.

The priest himself has said that he failed.

The Archbishop has decided upon a course of action for this priest to address this failure and for the Archbishop to assess where this priest is at this moment in his life and priestly ministry and what can be done relative to him and the prospect of any future ministry or pastoral work and how that could proceed.

The priest has been sent for a time of prayer and reflection and then he will be assessed and guided by a panel of professionals assembled by the Archbishop who will attempt to help this priest. The future for this priest is by no means sure or clear. My prayers are for the success of the process the priest has entered into.

If you really want to see a contrast to what this priest did, I would hold up a homily by the Archbishop of Southwark. After years, His Grace’s homily is fondly remembered.

http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/ann_noonan.html

Above all, my prayers are for the young man’s family. What this priest did only compounded their pain and trauma…and greatly added to it. That is a tragedy that nothing, no effort that the Archbishop can make when he meets with this family, can undo. The clock cannot be turned back nor can this episode be undone.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
Quote of @Hope1960: AND stepped down from presiding over funerals. He must’ve said something wrong that he regrets saying.
Click to expand...
Actually, the priest did not “step down from presiding over funerals.” That would be a voluntary act.

He has had his faculty extensively restricted by his Archbishop and the Archbishop is now the only one who can restore the faculty that the priest has had restricted.

The chancery of the archdiocese has announced that the priest in question will no longer give the homily at any funeral and ANY homily he gives must be first reviewed, and if needed revised, by the priest that the Archbishop has assigned that task to.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, the Archbishop has determined the priest acted wrongly and the priest has admitted in writing that he acted wrongly.

The debate of whether or not the family is correct in their accusation is therefore resolved.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/suicide-further-thoughts

Yet a priest from the diocese of Lansing has an entirely different take on the homily.

‘Thank you, Fr. LaCuesta, for not only speaking of God’s love and mercy as the family requested, but also for teaching the more difficult realities in how God’s love and mercy are applied even in difficult times. I am sure there were many who were suffering that day, not just because a loved one died, but also about how he died. With that in mind, both pieces needed to be addressed. You were a loving and pastoral priest that day meeting the many needs of all those present. Don’t let anyone tell you different.

As to the parents, I understand that you hurt over all this. I understand you were in a place where you were not able to hear the full message that Fr. LaCuesta preached. Please remember that he had a job, a ministry to do that transcended your needs alone. He had a whole congregation there. Because of your tragic situation, God was empowered to speak through this priest and perhaps save the life of one of his classmates who was thinking the same thing. Thanks to this priest in his courage to speak truth, another family may not have to go through what you are going through. Their son or daughter was saved this day. This too is God’s mercy. It is your turn now to show mercy and forgive this priest and love him as he loves you.’
 
Don_Ruggero said:
As a priest, I wish to say that I am horrified by the text of this homily. It is astonishing for its insensitivity.
Click to expand...
Don_Ruggero said:
The tone of this thread in recent posts is attempting to positively spin this priest’s failed pastoral care for this bereaved family.
Click to expand...
Father, I still don’t understand what was wrong or unpastoral in the homily. I do not challenge the authority of the bishop but as a faithful Catholic I do not understand what was wrong in what the priest said.
 
When the ordinary of your diocese speaks it counts. When a priest in the next diocese does it means nothing.
 
True. And for those who don’t see the problem with the homily what has been spoken is troubling. The priest has been severely sanctioned. For those who don’t see the problem this seems unfair to the priest. If the priest did nothing wrong then I’d be concerned that he wasn’t supported. We see this with big corporations where they’ll throw the working man to the wolves as quick as they can to get out of a bad public relations situation.
 
Actually the Holy Father would be the final word, though I doubt he’ll involve himself here. But this was made a public news story by the parents of the dead child, something I find very odd. Since it is a public story we can form our own opinions based on the evidence. The homily itself is available. Having read that I and many others don’t understand at all how the homily was problematic. So while the bishop absolutely does have authority here that doesn’t really settle things as far as opinions go.
 
If this were a matter of correcting an error on theology, doctrine, teaching etc, I’d stop posting about it.

But it’s NOT a correction of erroneous teaching. The problem with the homily, according to what people here have said, is that the priest mentioned suicide several times. It’s a ‘pastoral problem’ and the reasons beyond that one are still incredibly vague.

The initial news reports about this were all false and incited unfair opinions against the priest. You can see that here, with multiple ‘I read the news reports (but not the homily) and I think the priest should be relieved.’

It’s reasonable to think that this issue has been unfairly influenced by the media. I can think of a couple other instances where this is true.
 
Last edited:
It was correcting inappropriate pastoral care. Theology is not the only criterion for how a priest provides that care.

The archbishop, who is certainly not known for any lack of orthodoxy, has made a determination. It should be respected.
 
I’m sure the Bishop would have made clear to the priest involved the reason why they find his homily problematic.

The rest is conjecture on our part.
 
Last edited:
This being a public issue it would be nice to know what the problems were exactly. I had a non-Catholic friend email this news story to me. The general opinion from the news story would seem to be a story of an awful priest with no compassion making a family feel miserable over their son’s suicide. That is the take away based on the actions of the diocese. It ends up being yet another story of those ‘awful Catholic priests’.

For those like me since the homily seems to be orthodox Catholicism the harsh actions make us wonder exactly what Catholicism is supposed to teach.
 
When you read the homily, count all the times you see the word, ‘suicide.’ Those are places the homily went wrong.

How often have you attended a funeral and heard a homily like, “we trust that God can forgive all sins, even adultery. Jim died in the arms of a woman that was not his wife, but we pray God will forgive even this.”?
 
So it is wrong to mention suicide at the funeral mass of someone who committed suicide? Why is that wrong?

I’ve never to my knowledge been to a funeral where a man committing adultery died in the arms of his mistress. But if so the man would be in the same spot as the suicide. He would have died while having just committed a mortal sin. We should in fact worry about his soul, unless that is Christianity is a bunch of nonsense. If so then I’ll stop spending an hour every Sunday at Mass and giving my money to charity. That is by the way exactly the message people receive.
 
And how would the bishop know the man’s last thought? We have no idea whether someone is repentant.

Based on this thread, there should be very few funerals. Or, all funerals should include a list of the deceased’s known sins.
 
You don’t seem to distinguish between public, unrepentant, and grave sins. All three factors make a difference. Yes, we all commit sins. But not all our sins are public or grave. And not everyone is unrepentant.

The Church says a priest can not grant absolution of sins if the sinner is unrepentant. So it’s not as if the notion of unrepentant sinners being denied a sacrament is unheard of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top