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.
[…]
The KofC 4th Degree uniform change is ridiculous and tears down a traditional mode of dress which is proper, correct and respectful. No silly berets…no blazers can replace something worm proudly by thousands and thousands of Knights for decades. Worst of all…where is the sword??? This is patently stupid…and I will NOT be wearing the new version…period!
I have been fourth Degree knight for 15years and I am not changing now.I am not army Range if I want to be Range I would have done back in 1950.
I agree with you. I had always loved seeing the Knights in the traditional regalia and now it just looks sloppy.
““However, the preferred dress for the Fourth Degree – including color corps and honor guards – is now the new uniform of jacket and beret.””
Preferred by whom? The same people who think nuns should be schlepping around in street clothes in case someone might think that they were doing something out of the ordinary and special?
I will not be a fourth degree membr much longer
I made no such combative comments, just stated that I may not be a fourth degree
Member much longer
The decision to change the uniform was from the ground up or the top down??
It seem like the latter.
Was there a groundswell of complaints from 4th degree Knights about the old uniform?
Apparently not. So why the change?
Tradition, too much of it represented in the old uniform. And we all know who owns the mindset that has absolutely no use for Tradition. Do we not?
WHY CHANGE. TOTALLY STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!
I LIKE the new uniform! This is 2017, so why are we wearing chapeaus and capes that were the fashion in the 1700s or 1800s? Why not dress in 21st century clothes? The berets are NOT silly. In the military the beret is worn by the most elite forces, not by your average G I Joe. The 4th Deg. is the most elite of the K of C, so the Beret is very appropriate. If we are to look like Elite warriors for the Church, then lets look like soldiers. Tuxedos with nerdy looking bowties are appropriate for a high society Hollywood party, but are very un-military looking. We are knights, not Hollywood playboys. I’m a former Sir Knight who will not rejoin the Degree as long as they are still wearing Tuxedos and wimpy bowties. I’ll wait until this modern uniform is fully adopted and THEN apply to be reinstated. I’ll then wear the new uniform PROUDLY!
Everyone in the US Army now wears berets and most soldiers hate them, most do not know how to form them correctly.
Most of our Knights look silly with the beret because they wear them like Brownie scouts.
You seem to think the beret is more modern than the chapeau and cape. Here’s some information on the history of the beret from wikipedia.
Archaeology and art history indicate that headgear similar to the modern beret has been worn since the Bronze Age across Northern Europe and as far south as ancient Crete and Italy, where it was worn by the Minoans, Etruscans and Romans. Such headgear has been popular among the nobility and artists across Europe throughout modern history.[3]
The Basque style beret was the traditional headgear of Aragonese and Navarrian shepherds from the Ansó and Roncal valleys of the Pyrenees,[5] a mountain range that divides Southern France from northern Spain. The commercial production of Basque-style berets began in the 17th century in the Oloron-Sainte-Marie area of Southern France. Originally a local craft, beret-making became industrialised in the 19th century. The first factory, Beatex-Laulhere, claims production records dating back to 1810. By the 1920s, berets were associated with the working classes in a part of France and Spain and by 1928 more than 20 French factories and some Spanish and Italian factories produced millions of berets.[3]
In Western fashion, men and women have worn the beret since the 1920s as sportswear and later as a fashion statement.
Military berets were first adopted by the French Chasseurs Alpins in 1889. After seeing these during the First World War, British General Hugh Elles proposed the beret for use by the newly formed Royal Tank Regiment, which needed headgear that would stay on while climbing in and out of the small hatches of tanks. They were approved for use by King George V in 1924.[6] The black RTR beret was made famous by Field Marshal Montgomery in the Second World War.[3]
It takes a special person to advance to the 4th Degree, one who is willing to continue the service of the 3rd and be a visible part of the order in the ceremonies, funerals, and parades. Again, time is a major factor. If it is the regalia, then the regalia has not been explained properly. We wear a chapeau to show leadership as heads of families, as leaders in the church as an Admiral leads his fleet. The cape is worn to show that we protect women and children, using the cape as shelter from wind and rain, from poverty and despair. It is an honor to wear the regalia showing that you are a soldier for the church, a soldier against the secular society that is taking away sacred traditions like the sanctity of marriage, the rights of the unborn, and now even the identity of our genders. The regalia sets us apart from other groups such as the legion, the shrine, the kinsman and many more. When they see the regalia, they see the Knights of Columbus. With the new uniform, they will not see this.
Apparantly I am in a very small minority that likes the new uniform. On other websites almost all the comments are negative, some even insulting and bashing the K of C, The Board of Directors, the supreme Council, and even our Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. A few Sir Knights even threaten to resign. Brother Knights, even if we strongly disagree with the decisions of Supreme Council, let us show some respect for our Supreme Knight and Supreme Council. Please, there is no need to be rude or insultive to anyone. Where is our Fraternity? If I had beeen asked to design the uniform I would have designed it differently. But I’m not on the board of directors. and it wasn’t my decision. But let’s stop calling their decisions “stupid”. We need to remain loyal to our leaders and show some respect for them. I’m looking forward to getting back into the 4th Degree and even though I dont like everything about the new uniform, as I said before, I will wear it PROUDLY – as should all Sir Knights! But I will have to wait a while because I cannot afford to pay for a tuxedo and regalia which is being phased out, then pay again for the new design. As for the swords, the Supreme council has said that Ceremonial swords WILL still be used. I presume this includes a Service Baldric to hold the Sword. Let’s give the new uniform a fair trial. I’m willing to bet there was a major outcry among the members long ago when they modernized from top hats and tails, to ordinary tuxedos. But the 4th Degree survived. Now let’s get over these current changes and move on. Vivat Jesus!
You’ve already said that you would not rejoin the 4th degree until they change the uniform, which you describe in disparaging terms. Then you tell us that you are shocked – *shocked* – that a few Knights even threaten to resign over the matter. You don’t seem to be in a position to complain that they may do what you have done.
Your fixation on the 21st century and how the uniform should look modern leads me to wonder if perhaps you would prefer a ceremonial M4 to anything as old-fashioned as a sword.
This seems to have been a top-down, don’t-consult-the-peons, modernism-is-king sort of thing. Hmmm, where have I seen that before? *koff*spiritofVaticanII*koff*
Leslie, you are right. I was being quite a hypocrite to say I would not rejoin the 4th Degree until they adopted the new uniform, and then criticized others for wanting to resign. I was wrong, I stand corrected, and I apologise for those remarks and take them back. The truth is, and yes this IS the truth, on several occasions I HAVE considered rejoining the 4th Degree long before we knew anything about a uniform change. I did not drop out of the degree because of the uniform. I dropped out for financial reasons. (I was broke at the time and couldn’t pay my dues which were almost two years in arrears. The Assembly offered to help me out, but I foolishly declined.) As for the regalia, at one time I actually did own a tuxedo and full regalia – all second hand and offered to me at a reduced cost. These, however, were returned to the Assembly after I dropped out. Yes I did wear these on occasion. I am currently retired and on a low income (Social Security only no other income) Thus it seems prudent to wait and see what happens with the new uniforms. If the Supreme Council goes ahead with this change, why pay double for two uniforms when one is being phased out soon? I’ll just wait and only pay for the new design. On the other hand, If Supreme backs down and rescinds their decision and keeps the old regalia, then I’ll still only have to pay for the one set of “old” regalia. But I take back what I said about not rejoining unless the new uniform is adopted. I really do want to march with the color guard some day, regardless of which regalia is finally mandated. (But I hope it is the new one!) And for the record, I would NOT prefer a ceremonial M4 over a sword. In fact, I strongly wish to keep the sword and do not consider it old fashioned. Vivat Jesus!
If you want “respect” for supreme, then supreme needs to show some respect for us.
I served my country in the armed forces and was proud to serve. My uniforms were PROVIDED by my country. The new fourth degree UNIFORM of the fourth degree is exactly that a UNIFORM, not Regalia with tradition and meaning which is a part of the Fourth Degree. Each piece of my Regalia has a specific meaning. When I must purchase something I must like it. If I don’t like it, I do not buy it simple enough. I do not like the new Uniform and will not wear it just to update. OUR leaders chose it and told us that this is our new uniform. What ever happened to majority rules in our organizations, are we a free society? Were ANY or ALL Assemblies even given an option, or ask for an opinion on this? I think maybe a FEW may have been sold this bill of goods but not the majority. I surveyed all members of my Assembly and not ONE was in favor of the change. I for one was not aware of the change until I was informed in the State Newsletter. I for one WILL NOT buy the new UNIFORM, and will only participate in functions that require the current Regalia. I feel as do a majority of others that this is a travesty for OUR GREAT ORGANIZATION. Let’s still be recognized as Knights of Columbus by our attire, not Special Operation Soldiers. Let our great works of kindness, charity, unity,fraternity, as well as patriotism bring us TOGETHER not DIVIDE. Let us vote by Assemblies, One Sir Knight, One Vote. Lets see DEMOCRACY at work in the Knights of Columbus. WE ARE THE Organization and we should have a voice in what we wear. Vivat Jesus
Where are their Jump Wings and Ranger Tabs? Are they going to be allowed to wear them as well? Those who EARNED the privilege of wearing the beret consider this to be “Stolen Valor.”
I worked on a military base, and I remember when in 2001 the powers that be decided that all soldiers, not just Rangers, should wear black berets. According to Stars & Stripes, their rationale was something to the effect that the Rangers wore black berets and their morale and cohesion was high, and therefore if the rest of the army wore black berets their morale and cohesion would be high.
By that reasoning, I hoped that someone would give me an Olympic gold medal, because people with Olympic gold medals are fit and athletic and healthy, and if they gave me the medal I would then be fit, healthy, and athletic.
What’s with everybody swiping the black beret?