Priest criticizes teen who killed himself at funeral

New York Post ^ | Dec 14, 2018 | AP

[sparklite2]

Maison Hullibarger’s father tells the Detroit Free Press that he asked the priest to stop talking during the Dec. 8 funeral Mass. But Jeff Hullibarger says the Rev. Don LaCuesta continued giving a critical sermon at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Temperance.

Hullibarger says some mourners left the church crying.

The archdiocese released a statement Thursday saying it’s sorry that an “unbearable situation was made even more difficult.” The archdiocese says LaCuesta will not preach at funerals “for the foreseeable future.”

[ealgeone]

Evry single human person now a member of the Cathilic Church is a sinner. That's why EVERY MASS starts out with a Penitential Rite and EVERY HOLY COMMUNION is preceded by the words "O Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul will be healed.

That's nice but it doesn't address the issue of the homosexual priests still conducting services in your denomination.

Further, it also ignores that the death of Christ has already healed our soul.

One of many reasons you fail to qualify as an expert on "What Rome Says."

Just another reason you don't qualify as one who rightly handles the Scriptures.

9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:9-14 NASB

Please tell us what *you" believe.

I have been. I've been posting Scripture for my position....you've posted.....what? The catechism? Your opinion.

Which btw....I remind you that in Roman Catholicism that's about all you have is your opinion....no wait....you really don't even have that.

You're not a priest.

You're not qualified to comment on spiritual matters.

You as a lay Roman Catholic are unable to read the Scriptures for yourself and understand them.

You are just one of a billion or so lay Roman Catholics who are dependent upon your priest(s) to explain things to you.

You are not capable of even understanding the Catechism from a Roman Catholic teaching perspective.

I have no idea how Rome allows lay people like you with no formal training in one of their seminaries to teach those classes.

This is no disrespect intended toward you....it's just the reality of your position in Roman Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

I always notice no Roman Catholic ever refutes those quotes.

Pretty amazing how much they've bought into this false teaching.

[Mrs. Don-o]

" No, you are self defining it. Scripture tends to focus on your treatment of others, not yourself."

OK, so therefore: please quote me, chapter and verse, where it says "Scripture tends to focus on your treatment of others, not yourself." Because I don't see that anywhere.

The only near-verbatim equivalent quote I can find, is "treat others as yourself."

So if you think it's OK to kill yourself, you would also think it's OK to kill others, since you treat others as yourself.

The error here is not acknowledging the Biblical teaching that you are not an isolated "self" at all. You and other other person are both members of one Body. Because neither you nor the other person belong to yourselves: you belong to Christ. Another commandment (1 Corinthians 6:20): "You were bought at a price. So glorify God with your body. "

Killing yourself would disobey this commandment.

`

`

`

Tagline

[daniel1212]

hmmm... "Your response is not fitting or correct. First, you can only presume "And presuming the person was rational, morally cognizant and culpable for his actions, then committing suicide is a terminal denial of saving faith, though in some rare cases it may be out of a longing to be with their Lord and Savior. So, are you for presuming or against??

Neither, unlike the argument responded to, I am not presuming that a actual case was true, but setting forth a conditional argument based upon a possibility.

[ealgeone]

About people spouting off inaccurately about Catholic doctrine: might you ask them to check the Catechism? Might you take that advice yourself? Hmm?

I did even better....I got a lawyer!

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/05/04/ex-spouse-dies-second-valid/

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nobody can be pulled out of Eternal Hell by prayer. The souls of the just, however, can be helped by assisting in their purification.

You don't accept that Scripture either, so we seem to be at an impasse.

Could you please tell me who gave you the authority to "friend" or "unfriend" , "canonize or "decanonize" books from the Bible?

[ealgeone]

Could you please tell me who gave you the authority to "friend" or "unfriend" , "canonize or "decanonize" books from the Bible?

A better question might be who gave Rome the authority to add to the Scriptures....and I'm including Trent's position on "tradition".

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course the list of sacred texts suitable to use liturgically (that is, per definition, the canon) was clear way before Trent.

I suggest you look into the era of Pope Damasus and the synods of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, 1500 years before Reformation-era dissenters made all Christian creeds and canons controverial again.

Please look at the "Decretal of Gelasius", attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382 AD.. The other one you want to look at is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 AD to a Gallican bishop in answer to his inquiry about the canon.

Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.

You can see for yourself that the books identified as Scripture exhibited very substantial continuity: Trent merely recognized and certified more than a millennium worth of Christian liturgical practice.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No quote, I see.

[Bayard]

Read Luke 20:27-40

Jesus himself says that the Marriage bond is over after death. In Heaven they neither marry or are given in marriage.

Is Jesus a Heretic too?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+20%3A27-40&version=KJV

[Mrs. Don-o]

You looked up canon law! Well, finally! Thank you!

That means you presumably read he part that says after the death of the first spouse, the second marriage, although initially contracted invalidly, presumably by a civil ceremony (while still married to the first spouse) can THEN be made valid.

"1.) Legally, the second marriage has to be made valid. The Catholic should start by speaking to the parish priest regarding how to go about doing this. Assuming that there are no other canonical issues involved, fixing this should not be an insurmountable problem at all.

Thank you SO much for confirming my point.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're at 009 now, second accounting series. You may make another 350 errors on Catholic doctrine before Christmas. Go for it!

[Jonty30]

By your measure, when you aren’t doing everything possible to keep a hurting person alive, including quitting your job and becoming their full time servant, you’ve contributed to their suicide because you weren’t there when they ended their life.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"That's nice but it doesn't address the issue of the homosexual priests still conducting services in your denomination."

The verbiage on this thread has been flying so thick and fast, you must have missed what I posted to you at

#193

Here,I'll repeat myself. That doesn't seem to make any impression, but I'll repeat myself anyway:

"BTW, deviant gay intercourse, like every other kind of deviant perverse intercourse, is a sin.

When anybody does that, clergy or laity, gay or straight, male or female, married or unmarried, drunk or sober, closeted or loud and proud, it is a sin. If you don't repent and you receive ANY Sacrament unrepentant, that is another sin on top of the first one.

Called sacrilege."

Sacrilegious activities of any kind are unlawful. A priest being in mortal sin does not affect the action of a Liturgy or a Sacrament by his gross unworthiness (since the priest is not acting on his own power or merit, but Christ's) --- however the sodomite priest himself is personally guilty of sacrilege, which is frightfully evil, and he is answerable for that to God.

He ought to be removed, as Abp. Viganò said. Those who know of his sodomy and permit it to continue, are also guilty of being accessories to his sin.

Catholics --- including priests and hierarchs --- violating Catholic moral law constitutes a real horror.

That does not invaldidate Catholic moral law. It calls out all the more urgently for its enforcement.

I hope all will pray with me for the repentance of Catholic sinners, together with all sinners everywhere.

[Mrs. Don-o]

LOL! Yet another Cathy Newman!

"By your measure..."

--- yada yada yada plus absurd caricature of the other persons' position with exaggerated hyperbole.... is called ...

...---...---...---...---...---...Cathy Newmaning

---

This is so fun.

[ealgeone]

Of course the list of sacred texts suitable to use liturgically (that is, per definition, the canon) was clear way before Trent.

I suggest you read some history on the formation of the canon. It's not as clear as you suggest.

Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.

Yet not recognized dogmatically by Rome until Trent.

However they were not recognized by the early ekklesia.

[ealgeone]

We have the family's account of what happened.

I still cannot believe you are defending this priest.

[Mrs. Don-o]

For the other excellent example of Cathy Newmaning on this thread...

#77

[2nd amendment mama]

I post a serious reply and you post this crap! Typical RC garbage from you. You support a priest who denigrates an 18 year old at his funeral. Would you also support this priest if he was abusing young boys while at the same time refusing to serve Communion to someone who is divorced and remarried?

[editor-surveyor]

.
He should have demonstrated how to do it properly himself.