Detroit Archdiocese reprimands priest after homily during teen's funeral sparks anger

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

God bless, I'm well. Currently eating a bowl of raisin bran crunch so alls good.

It just seems like you dont want to hear about it from priests. Whenever they say something you dont like this comes up. Or, I know I've read you saying you feel less embarrassed going to confession because of the scandals. Like, why? Not that you should be embarrassed to go to confession.  But many priests have nothing to feel guilty about re the scandals. And they shouldn't feel unable or embarrassed to preach the truth either.  

Love Rasian Bran. Haven't tried the crunch.

I don't mind hearing it from priest's. I have a good priest at my parish who talks about mortal sin ect I'm all for it. Yeah I think child paedophilia is one of the worst evils out there. But I'm just as disturbed or even more about the continued cover-up of it that doesn't stop. It just continues and continues. All the way up to the Pope. The 2 before Francis as well. Not saying it's beyond forgiveness or anything like that but it bothers me. Extremely. To the point it tempts me to leave Catholicism. Not going to do that but it's a temptation.

I'm embarrassed/nervous to go to Confession sometimes because I do evil things. It's really difficult to tell the evil things you do to a complete stranger when they tell you none of the evil things they do. It's even more difficult if they snap at you or respond in a confrontational way. Like I said before this has only happened once. So my experiences in Confession have been good. But it's still tough to do. If I was going in there with the scrupulous stuff people at Catholic answers do then it might be easier. But that's not the case with me. I confess messed up stuff. I should stop doing these things but I'm not a good person. If im being honest it's easier to go to Confession when I know what the Church is guilty of and to what extent. I know I'm wrong for thinking like this but it's how I feel. I'm very disturbed how the abuse of minors and kids could be handled like this for so long all the way up to the top.

I definitely don't think innocent priests have anything to feel guilty or embarrassed about. Or Bishops or Cardinals. The ones who truly knew nothing about what was happening have nothing to be ashamed of. If I've expressed that tgey do in the past I apologize. But the ones who are guilty and nothing happens to them. The ones who are promoted to Cardinal and put in charge of handling the procedures in protecting youth from this happening (aka Mccarick) they need called out by good priest's. Like the good priest here who called out the kid for taking his life and how he let everyone down. I hope this priest has the courage to speak out against his fellow priests bishops cardinals and popes who have also let people down. Who have led people to kill themselves and leave the Church and lose faith in God. I don't think the innocent priest should feel any guilt at all. And its not virtual signaling when they call out the guilty . Just like it's not virtual signaling when the priest calls out this kids suicide and the evil of it. People in the pews need to hear that innocent priests are upset and bothered by the abuse and continued cover-up that never ends all the way up to the popes. Just like they need to hear how suicide is wrong and never justified. That's my view at least.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Guest

[PhuturePriest]

5 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Idk. Did you read the text of the homily? I think this family is high-conflict. Which,  probably I would be too if my child killed himself. But reading what was printed from the homily, it doesn't seem cruel to me at all. Knowing the churchs teaching as I do I would appreciate it if someone in authority acknowledged my loved ones suicide and in the same breath assured me it didnt separate them from Gods love.

That said.

Once upon a time the purpose of the funeral mass was clear. The archdiocese in its response, suggests the purpose is to communicate Gods closeness to those who mourn. But that's nonsense. Comforting the living is a side thing. The mass is FOR the dead. 

Eulogies are not supposed to take place during mass. 

Just saying, I'll be really pissed if people at my funeral just go on about how great i was. Like visit from purgatory pissed. 

 

Having lived in Detroit, I can assure you that the archdiocese's statements reflect the whole of their mentality and ethos.

On the one hand, the archdiocese is afraid of rocking the boat, especially after all of the negative press in the media for the Church in general. It's understandable. But, knowing the archdiocese, they would have said this no matter the context of press, so I'm not going to give them that much of a pass.

I think the priest made an excellent homily for well-catechized Catholics who know what a funeral is for. Sadly, the opposite is what should be taken for granted, and I think he should have taken that into account and made at least a primer on the purpose of a funeral Mass. I think the problem wasn't necessarily the content, but the lack of padded wording. It's likely that the priest is not a personality who finds this necessary, which is not bad or wrong, but there are those who are more sensitive and worry when the absence of more comforting language is found (not that his message wasn't, but the wording itself).

The whole situation, of course, is unfortunate. That the funeral Mass was needed, that the family does not appear to understand the purpose of a funeral, that the priest perhaps didn't read or prepare the family as well as he should have, and that the family took such offense to bring it to the news. It could be that the family is high-conflict, it could be that the priest is insensitive, it could be that they wouldn't have been comforted no matter the message, etc., etc. If nothing else, I think this just underscores the problem with hyper sensationalizing everything and bringing it all to the media. It could have been resolved on the local level, but everyone today feels the need to let everyone know that x did y and it super offended me.

[chrysostom]

Incredibly beautiful homily.

It makes me think though. My family would also be offended if the priest suggested that they pray for me after death because it goes against their beliefs. Not even sure I’d get a proper funeral Mass. I’d still want the priest to do it though.

[CatherineM]

If the family didn’t want it publicly known their son committed suicide, making this viral kind of seems counter. 

[Jack4]

Excellent analysis from Dr Ed Peters:

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/god-bless-fr-lacuesta/

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/about-that-funeral-mass-homily-some-points/

[Jack4]

On 12/18/2018 at 4:59 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

A homily, insofar as I am aware, focuses on the Gospel and Readings and how to apply to our own lives.

From a good priest:

 ...the application of the readings to daily life is only one part of what a homily is supposed to accomplish. I try to do that, but the most important part of any Scripture reading is that Jesus is somehow conveyed in it, and helping people see how that happens, helping them understand Jesus better, helping them know Him better, is ultimately more applicable in daily life than an obvious moral.... I am at a loss to see how knowing Christ better is not applicable to daily life.

On 12/18/2018 at 5:49 AM, Lilllabettt said:

You dont tell a priest what you want in a homily.

Spot-on! A homily teaches us what we don't know and/or reminds us of what we don't remember enough. What is the purpose of a homily that tells you what you already know?

On 12/18/2018 at 6:49 AM, Lilllabettt said:

Its apparent to me that there were assumptions being made and lines of communication were crossed. But the media characterization of this poor man as a cruel, stone hearted nut job and the archdiocese's decision to try to professionally squeeze the Catholicism out of him is DISGUSTING. 

Reminded me of this:

Quote

I’ve heard people say that the bishop was arrogant. Well, if I’m being completely honest (I always was with him, so I might as well be with you), he could come off as arrogant from time to time. He was extremely smart and extremely well educated. But the truth of what some called arrogance was really more frustration. You see, for the life of him he couldn’t understand how people expected him to be anything more or less than a Catholic bishop. He was a teacher of the Catholic faith because he firmly believed that it was handed down from Christ to His apostles, and from those apostles to him. He didn’t change the faith because it wasn’t his to change. The faith belongs to Christ, the message is from Christ. Morlino knew he was just the messenger. That doesn’t sound so arrogant, does it? 

 

[Jack4]

On 12/18/2018 at 7:39 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

the sin against The Holy Spirit

St John Paul teaches:

Quote

 

Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood ? St. Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is "unforgivable by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness of sin takes place."183

According to such an exegesis, "blasphemy" does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the "convincing concerning sin" which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the "coming" of the Counselor-that "coming" which was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery, in union with the redemptive power of Christ's Blood: the Blood which "purifies the conscience from dead works."

We know that the result of such a purification is the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, whoever rejects the Spirit and the Blood remains in "dead works," in sin. And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience. If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. The Spirit has infinite power to draw from these sources: "he will take what is mine," Jesus said. In this way he brings to completion in human souls the work of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, and distributes its fruits. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a "right" to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.

 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html no 46

On 12/18/2018 at 8:08 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

nothing can separate us from The Love of Christ, not even child rape

I read the verse as meaning as nothing can separate us from God's love except sin. This is in keeping with what the Church teaches about sin.

Quote

 

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

 

Quote

 

Haydock Ver. 35. &c. Who then, or what shall separate us from the love of Christ? Neither devils, nor men, nor any thing in nature, unless it be by our own fault, and unless we wilfully and sinfully leave God. 

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment132.shtml

 

 

[Norseman82]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 6:42 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Cnn: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/16/us/michigan-funeral-priest-slams-suicide/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Theres a link in the text to a copy.

Thank you for the link.  When I first read about this a few days ago, my first thought was that if reiterating that suicide was a sin prevented one person from taking their own life by making them think twice, then it was worth mentioning it. 

However, having read the link, I think those were actually very comforting words. 

I did read on Catholic Answers Forum that the priest was from the Phillipines, so there may have been a language / culture disconnect. 

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:19 PM, Lilllabettt said:

and the archdiocese's decision to try to professionally squeeze the Catholicism out of him is DISGUSTING. 

If you think that's disgusting, you're going to be vomiting for a month regarding the way the north side priest who burned the rainbow flag was treated.

[beatitude]

On 12/24/2018 at 2:54 AM, Norseman82 said:

I did read on Catholic Answers Forum that the priest was from the Phillipines, so there may have been a language / culture disconnect. 

I think this is likely, combined what what Lilllabettt is saying - a lack of understanding amongst the family about the purpose of a funeral Mass, and the meaning of death in Catholicism.

This time last year, a close friend of mine died after a long illness. Regular Phatmassers will remember her as faithcecelia. When other friends asked if there was anything they could do to help, I asked them to pray for her soul and to pray for me - and the number of people (including Catholics) who felt it would be comforting to tell me that she didn't need praying for was pretty astonishing. I know they meant to be nice. But the comfort they offered instead ("She's got her angel wings", "God decided she was too good for this world," "Heaven needed another angel", etc.) just felt saccharine and devoid of substance. (Before her death Faith had told me that the idea that people morph into angels on dying really annoyed her, but of course I didn't dare to say so to all these well-meaning people who just wanted to comfort me when I was crying.) And what is more comforting than the power of prayer, the way it connects us to the dead, and the knowledge that God responds in mercy? Why should that repel people, or cause them to launch into an impassioned speech about how prayers for the dead aren't necessary?

I think there is something to be said for 'funeral preparation' in the same way we have marriage prep - the priest can spend a bit of time sensitively talking the family through the purpose of the funeral, the reason why we have the prayers and traditions that we have, and answering any questions they might have. We can't take solid formation for granted and a family might need that.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, beatitude said:

  On 12/24/2018 at 1:24 PM, Norseman82 said:

I did read on Catholic Answers Forum that the priest was from the Phillipines, so there may have been a language / culture disconnect. 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, beatitude said:

I think this is likely, combined what what Lilllabettt is saying - a lack of understanding amongst the family about the purpose of a funeral Mass, and the meaning of death in Catholicism.

I don't think so. I think it was the family being in extreme grief and then blindsided by the priest. I don't get why people don't understand this. A lot of reasonable people do but some refuse. Understand that the priest talked to the father before and gave him the impression he would talk about the sons life. Durning the homily it didn't happen once. If the priest was unable to do this he should of told the father. He should of said the purpose of the homily is for me to teach the catechism on suicide. Then they could of talked it out right there and made decisions going forward. The sons father approached the priest twice durning the homily and asked him to please stop. And he just kept going. He kept using the word suicide. Who does that after being asked to stop by the family twice? 

[tinytherese]

So many factors, perspectives, and possibilities. I don't know what to think.

[Jack4]

What is the purpose of the homily?

Vatican II says

 

Quote

52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year;

In a way, the homily is, by its very nature, catechitical. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tinytherese said:

So many factors, perspectives, and possibilities. I don't know what to think.

I think both sides are at fault. And probably not maliciously. We're all sinners. I forgive them both.