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

[billsannie]

I know, and you’re right. Happily, the Church is much more careful these days about causing scandal. I had in mind older examples, like some of the hulking great Mafia funerals of the 1920’s and '30’s.

 

[billsannie]

Reaching the decision to kill oneself takes a tremendous amount of motivation. Depression and deep emotional pain are strong motivators. I don’t think that anger or hatred would be sufficient without being accompanied by a great deal of pain. Anger and hatred, after all, tend to lead to action of some sort. Pain and despair do as well, but only to stop the pain. Depression has an anger component, but being direct inward, it’s quite different.

What I’m trying to say, but don’t really know how to do it, is that simple anger toward God, or anyone else, seems to motivate people differently. Suicide might seem to be the ultimate revenge against God, but the desire for revenge seeks satisfaction. Where is the satisfaction in suicide? I would think most people would instead dedicate their lives to fighting God, as some do.

I’m not saying this pain is the only reason for suicide, but I strongly suspect it’s by far the most common. The sinfulness of it is something only God can judge, but I can assure you that someone in who is suffering so much cannot see it as a sin.

 

[JimG]

I recall a talk given at a retreat where some or many people had experienced this in their own family or a close friend. He said that he sometimes considers that those who take their own lives have already gone through their own purgatory and their own hell before coming to that point.

As to the homily in question, it seems that it was not so much that it was theologically wrong or even a bad homily, but that it went against what had been discussed beforehand with the family. At least that’s the impression I get from John Zmirak who retracted his own prior comments:

https://stream.org/second-thoughts-on-suicide-and-catholic-funerals/

 

[0331]

What did the priest say that was so offensive, use the word suicide?

As someone else suggested, to ignore the elephant in the room would be to do the soul and the family a disservice.

Here’s another thought: how many of us on this thread have prayed for the young man’s soul since reading this story? Probably most of us. How many of us would be aware of this young man and would have prayed for him, if the priest had not mentioned suicide? None of us. The funeral would not have gotten any news attention if Fr. had not spoken the truth.

In the spirit of Ember Days, say a prayer that priests may be courageous and filled with the Spirit of Truth.

I think the homily speaks greatly about the Lord’s mercy, and encourages the living not to despair, because our prayers will help that man’s soul.

 

[JulianN]

Actually, now that the homily has been released, it is clear that all the apologies were warranted. As someone who lost a very close family member to suicide, I can say this homily would have caused me to report the priest as well.

 

[0331]

Please elaborate as to what was so offensive about this homily.

 

[Hope1960]

What did the priest say that was so offensive, use the word suicide?

Telling his parents, friends and other family members he might not make it to Heaven due to the way he died.
And mentioning the word suicide SIX times is uncalled for.

 

[JulianN]

How often have you attended a funeral and had the priest mention the cause of death over and over in the homily? Have you heard a lot of homilies blaming heart attack victims for their own deaths – suggesting that they’ve sinned by failing to treat their bodies as temple of the Holy Spirit?

This isn’t about whether the theology is correct – it’s about pastoral sensitivity. And clearly, the archdiocese agrees.

 

[JulianN]

That’s a good column – and I’m glad to see the integrity of someone being able to change his mind.

 

[0331]

He preached about Christ’s love, mercy, and forgiveness, even for what some call an unforgivable sin. What would be more fitting for such an event—to ignore the questions that would be burning in many hearts, about where the soul of this young man may end up? I thought the homily was hopeful in Jesus’ mercy.

A suicide is not a heart attack. Let’s not try to compare the two. And the only time Fr. mentioned ‘sin’ was in the context of mercy:

‘Because ofthe all- embracing sacrifice of Christ on the cross God can have mercy on any sin.’

Is the problem with the homily that he said ‘suicide’ six times? Should he have just ignored the cause of death?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Is the problem with the homily that he said ‘suicide’ six times? Should he have just ignored the cause of death?

As has been discussed in detail in this thread, when preaching a funeral homily, the priest typically does not describe the cause of death, or the manner in which the person died, or anything to do with the death.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In the spirit of Ember Days, say a prayer that priests may be courageous and filled with the Spirit of Truth.

As someone who just finished my own Ember Days fast about 40 minutes ago, do you really think that giving an insensitive homily for which your bishop apologizes is promoting the “Spirit of Truth”?

The Catholic funeral is to help the soul of the deceased on its way and comfort the mourners, not to give a teaching on the morality or lack thereof of the life of the deceased.

 

[MarlboroMan]

The Catholic funeral is to help the soul of the deceased on its way and comfort the mourners, not to give a teaching on the morality or lack thereof of the life of the deceased.

This is not the teaching of the Church. It is just an opinion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Kindly show me a source where the Church officially teaches that the funeral homily is a place to give a teaching on the morality of the life of the deceased.

I believe your post is “just an opinion” also.

 

[0331]

Are we reading the same homily? Did Fr. LaCuesta say anything wrong? Would it be truthful to ignore the fact that the young man committed suicide?

Based on the comments on a variety of other sites that feature this story, the jury is still out on whether Fr. was insensitive or not. But no one has pointed out any lies or falseness to what he preached.

Many of us think the priest did a great job helping the soul of the deceased and affirming hope in Christ’s mercy.

If the priest were to try to be ‘sensitive’ and avoid the use of the word suicide, I think he would have a much tougher time preaching hope and mercy, and helping the boy’s soul.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sorry, but I really think that Don Ruggero and the bishop of the diocese were correct in this matter and Fr. LaCuesta was wrong. I think I am going to leave it at that and mute the thread now as we seem to be repeating all the same points discussed earlier in the thread, over and over, as new people join the thread. Bye now.

 

[0331]

I think you’ll find other priests have the opposite opinion. Fr. Z, for example:

Priest preaches at funeral, world falls on his head - UPDATE - HOMILY TEXT

UPDATE 17 Dec 2018: Canonist Ed Peters has a post about the text of the sermon that Fr. LaCuesta gave at the funeral for the young man who committed suicide. The family fueled the usual hyped-up MSM faux reporting. (NYT ... can you believe it? NYT covered it? was shameless and ultra-lib bedm

wdtprs.com

Regarding the diocese, I can think of a couple other times in which a bishop threw a priest to the wolves after media got wind of a story they could use against the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have never heard of some parishioners being allowed to dictate the homily.

Is this a common practice?

This is not a case of parishioners “dictating” a homily.

And, yes, normally the Presider will consult with the family on all aspects of the funeral rites from reading choices to music selections – and also receive information necessary to craft a homily appropriate to the deceased individual. Any time I have received a request that could be complied with, I have…elements to be highlighted or elements to be passed over relative to the person and his or her life.

Some times a request or requests have to be declined because they are beyond the parameters that the liturgy can accommodate, such as musical selections. The theme for Chariots of Fire, for example, would not be an appropriate recessional.

A cleric who is well formed will be attentive to situations in which prudence would dictate consulting the diocesan curia, the office of liturgy or even the Bishop himself when the matter is a delicate one or requires some decision that is likely to be referred by the family to the offices of the diocese.

In this case, the requests of the family were entirely reasonable and appropriate – and, most importantly, the Archbishop who is the supreme moderator of the liturgy within his diocese has made a determination against the priest’s actions and decisions and the priest has agreed with that assessment. The priest has admitted that his actions were inappropriate and wrong.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was asked if I would be willing to add a post to this thread.

Really, there is not much commentary to add. I do not know the priest. I remember the Archbishop and have a very good opinion of him and remembrance of him.

I will say that ultimately, the judge and the arbiter in matters like this of a diocesan priest, such as this priest, in the bishop of the diocese where the priest in incardinated, presuming the matter does not require being forwarded to the Holy See for assessment and adjudication. In this case, it is in fact the Archbishop of Detroit. And he has made his judgment. The priest has had his faculty to preach extremely restricted by the Archbishop and the priest is remanded to a team of professionals for examination, analysis and a path – hopefully – to remedy for the priest.

It is a severe assessment but it is short of having his pastoral assignment terminated or being suspended a divinis, which would not have been inappropriate. The Archbishop has chosen a middle path – at least for the moment – pending the assessment he has mandated and the recommendation of the panel of experts who will be entrusted with the priest.

If a priest felt that the assessment was unfair or unjust, he could refer the matter to the Congregation for the Clergy, a dicastery of the Holy See. Rather than object or protest the judgement of the Archbishop and his curia, the priest has stated: “As with any funeral, it was my intent to serve this family in their time of grief, but I fell well short of providing them the comfort they do desperately needed. Instead, I added to their pain. I deeply regret that and I am sorry.”

The matter is in the correct forum for resolution: the Archbishop and those he may consult and those to whom he will remand the priest. He has sustained that the priest’s actions were wrong and the priest has also admitted it, so to argue that the priest was not wrong is rather a fruitless endeavor really. Those with the competence to make the determination – the Archbishop and the priest himself – have made their assessments.

As to other points raised, today, unlike in years past, suicide would never result in Catholic funeral rites being denied to the person. The Archdiocese of Detroit specifically addressed this in the curia’s prescriptions on the liturgy and the priests working within the archdiocese would be strictly obliged to implement the archdiocese’s directives. The directive is, actually, very well written and I compliment them on its construction. Indeed, to have denied this person a funeral would be justification to suspend the priest; that option was never possible to the priest.

http://www.aod.org/being-catholic/p...-for-catholic-funerals-questions-and-answers/

 

[Don_Ruggero]

cont’d

The proscription of Catholic funeral rites for public notorious sinners as delineated in canon law and liturgical law is so seldom invoked in the first world that the decision to do so is normally done in consultation with the diocesan curia – and indeed normally involves the Bishop himself assessing the matter since he is the supreme moderator of the liturgy within his diocese and the ramifications are often far-reaching. In any event, suicide or dying in the commission of a crime would not rise to the level of public notorious sinner for a variety of reasons.

It is not at all unusual to find oneself Presider at a funeral for someone you do not know. With the elderly and infirm, for example, they may have been confined to a nursing home or other care facility or else lived with family outside the boundary of the parish, some times even for years. A priest would assuredly know how to overcome that lacuna through consultation with various sources. If he doesn’t, he should not be the parish priest.

After the years I have been a priest, I do not in any way think that the Archbishop has overreacted or been too harsh. To the contrary, I would say he has been lenient. In my diocese, the priest would have faced a stricter penalty.

The assessment I made earlier in the thread, I affirm.