“The Archdiocese of Detroit said a priest is no longer allowed to speak at funerals after he infuriated the family of a teenager who killed himself by raising the question in a sermon of whether people who die by suicide can be granted God’s forgiveness. According to the teen's father, [the priest] condemned his son instead of celebrating his life.”His mother was quoted saying:
“Maison didn’t deserve this. He basically called him a sinner in front of everybody. We were just blindsided.”Since then, the Detroit diocese has reprimanded the priest and apologized to the family.
Well, the diocese also released the text of the homily. While the priest did say that suicide is wrong, he didn't dwell on it. The homily doesn’t fit the harsh description given by the family – and the condemnation from the media and the diocese seems quite undeserved.
Most of the homily was spent reminding the audience that there is hope in Christ even for suicide victims. Far from condemning the teen, the priest came very close to canonizing him.
Which brings me to the topic I want to address. It’s about one mistake the priest did make, and a commonly misinterpreted passage of Romans 8.
Once Saved, Always Saved?
One of the ideas which sprouted from the Protestant movements is an ideology called “eternal security” or more colloquially “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). It means that once a sinner is brought into the sheepfold of Christ, nothing can possibly remove him/her from that status. Such a person could theoretically murder millions of people and never jeopardize his/her salvation.
In Catholic terms, the doctrine amounts to a denial of the existence of mortal sin. Mortal sins are grave offenses against God which are capable of sending a Christian to hell. So if OSAS says Christians are incapable of going to hell, it means there is no such thing as mortal sin.
The most commonly cited Biblical support for this idea is from Romans 8. The passage says:
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:35-39
The passage is summarized by Protestants who say:
“See? Paul says ‘nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ’. Therefor a Christian could never go to Hell, no matter what he/she does.”Unfortunately, this interpretation found its way into the Detroit priest’s homily. He said:
“What will separate us from the love of Christ? St. Paul answers that question with a display of words that cover everything he can think of in so little space. Not death or life, not angels or principalities, not present things or future things, not powers or height or depth or any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
What did St. Paul leave out of that list? Nothing. He did not list suicide, but he did not list murder or gossip or greed either. He covered all of those things in the final flurry of words that includes anything else in all creation. No deed is too evil to be beyond the forgiveness of Christ. No tragedy is too great to separate us from the love of God.”
Not on the List:
The priest, in a well-meaning attempt to assure the congregants of the teen’s salvation, unfortunately mixed some truth with falsehood. Yes, no evil is beyond the forgiveness of Christ. However, there is a good reason why Saint Paul did not include grave sin in his list of things which won’t separate you from Christ. Because elsewhere, Paul (and others) say this is precisely what mortal sin does:
"For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off." - Romans 11:22
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1Corinthians 6:9
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” - Galatians 5:16-21
This is echoed by Saint John, who says:
"Whoever says 'I know Him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked." - 1John 2:4-6
“Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.” - 1 John 3:15
And Saint James too:
“My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.” - James 5:19-20
This is why the Church teaches the following about mortal sin:
“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. Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices forever, with no turning back.” - CCC 1855, 1861
Catholics and Romans 8:
The context of Romans 8 makes the meaning of the passage very clear. Paul is assuring his audience that nothing we suffer in this life – whether it is disease, disability, or persecution – will separate us from Christ. Therefor we can proceed with confidence through all of life’s travails.
However, the message changes when it comes to the moral behavior of Christians. Mortal sin really is deadly, and creates in us the need to avail ourselves to Christ’s mercy. The tragedy of suicide (one of the tragedies, I should say), is that the person dies in the commission of an act which – if done with sufficient freedom and knowledge – would be a mortal sin.
However, we can take some comfort in the fact that God can work repentance in us even in the shortest moments before death. He also takes into account the wounded emotional state of suicidal persons. This can give us hope for those who commit suicide.
Thus, we should keep this particular teen in our prayers, along with his family and for all others who find themselves affected by suicide.
Keep that priest and the people of the Archdiocese of Detroit in your prayers also. He is probably one of very few there who knows that being a diocesan priest is not popularity contest.
ReplyDeleteThe Priest was doing his job by mostly telling the truth. However, another heresy espoused in the homily was present. He spoke about something called the fundamental option. This heresy states that God judges the entirety of one’s life in determining eternal destiny instead of the belief that one sin can cause you to lose your salvation. This is false. Your final decision could be repentance after a life of sin resulting in salvation or a mortal sin after a lifetime of holiness resulting in being lost.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right that the "fundamental option" idea of our judgement is erroneous. But I'd caution you against throwing around the word "heresy". Not everything which is theologically false is a heresy.
DeleteTypically, unless I can find a conciliar statement (ending with "anathema sit"), I'll call it a heresy. If not, I just call it an "error".
It is true to say that nothing can separate us from the love of God. To say this is not to assume that there is not eternal damnation for those who have rejected the love of God. This is the key: the love of God never ends. Even if I was committing mortal sin after mortal sin, His love endures. It is always true that God’s love is always there. You have chosen to associate Fr. LaCuesta’s words with OSAS, but this is not what he said. Another key: we do not know whether someone has rejected the love of God, which is why we always pray in hope. Only God knows. This is not OSAS.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the alternative perspective. It is true that on an ontological level you can never fully separate yourself from the love of God. It's literally what's keeping you in existence moment to moment.
DeleteHowever, one can separate oneself from divine charity in the sense that you lose communion with God. Thus, the Catechism says about hell: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell'."
So in which sense was the good pastor intending when he read Romans 8? Was he just assuring his audience that the teen would be kept in existence? Or was he trying to assert something more. I think the context makes the intent of Fr. LaCuesta's reading of Romans 8 clear. He was trying to give comforting words that the act of suicide would not forfeit the teen's communion with God. In doing so, he insisted Paul meant no sin would forfeit loving communion with God.
I absolutely do not see Fr. LaCuesta's words as you see them. He did not say anything about the teen's communion with God, because he cannot make that judgement. (Only the Father). Fr. LaCuesta clearly said that we all need Christ to intercede for us, to plead our case. He clearly called all to pray for the deceased, to "not deny him now of the help he needs most-our love expressed through our trusting prayers." We are to pray in hope, always, because nothing can separate us from the love of God, and for God, "a thousand years are like a day" (cf. Ps 90:4). We know nothing about that moment. We pray that the Father sees that moment through His Son, and that the deceased has fallen into the arms of Jesus at that moment.
DeleteYou know, the problem with this homily, was if you forget WHAT he said about suicide, it is significant that ALL he talked about was suicide. That is the problem. Also, he spent too much time saying suicide is wrong. He should have said, "Suicide is wrong, but.." then went on with the "Jesus saves" stuff. But he should have talked about the boy as an individual. He should have talked about the boy's life, separate from his suicide.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a difference in expectations which plays into this. What the family - and many others - were expecting was a "celebration of life" eulogy.
DeleteWhat they got was a Catholic funeral homily. And complaining that a Catholic funeral homily had too many reflections on death, redemption, and salvation is like complaining about there being too much electronics at a Best Buy.
Now, there are 14 paragraphs in the homily itself. Of those, there were 2 (perhaps 3) which mentioned the wrongness of suicide. The rest of it was about hope and forgiveness in Christ.
And while in this space I criticize his mis-use of Romans 8, I will say the subject matter and the proportions he used were spot on. If the family wants a "celebration of life" eulogy, that's fine. But that's not the job of a Catholic priest in his homily.
EXACTLY! This is something I fight all-too-often. Priests have given in to the mentality of a eulogy, and that is a mistake. A Catholic funeral homily should be looking forward to eternity, not backward about what has been "lost". It is important to acknowledge the loss and ache in those left behind, but a funeral is more a celebration of eternal life than a celebration of earthly life.
DeleteI would probably not have been as strong on the suicide comments, but I certainly would not have ignored the issue either.
One phrase I have found myself using a lot in funerals lately is that, for Catholics it is a "joyful-sorrow." The joy is with God, the sorrow is with the loss.
Having just read his homily carefully, and given my own long life, I must say that, had it been delivered to pre-Conciliar Catholics, no one would have thought he had said anything wrong or emphasized any point unduly.
ReplyDeleteHe condemned the act without implying in any way that this young man necessarily acted with full voluntariness, and he repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of the Redemptive grace of Christ Jesus.
The problem is that this priest spoke the truth in an era in which truth is not accepted and in which not even many Catholics can bear to hear it.
Well, I have little perspective on what pre-conciliar Catholics would think.
DeleteBut you are quite right that in today's climate, people are not accustomed to hearing reflections on sin, death, and redemption. It was strange to me that the mother complained about the priest "saying her son was a sinner."
If at my funeral, the priest says I am a sinner redeemed by Jesus... that's the best news anyone present will ever hear.
It seems to me that in Romans 8:35-39 Paul is speaking of external forces, whereas the other verses referred to in the article (e.g., Rom 11:22, 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:16-21) are speaking of internal forces. Man's will is absolutely free from external coercion; hence, no external force ("tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword") can separate us from the love of God. Rather, only that which is internal, the free exercise of one's will in an act that is by its very nature a rejection of God, can bring about the separation referred to in those other verses.
ReplyDeleteIn the homily, the priest seems to be erroneously including internal forces ("suicide . . . murder or gossip or greed") where the context is that of external forces. However, we need to recognize that the internal force is an act of the will, whereas the "suicide . . . murder or gossip or greed" is an external expression of the associated internal act of the will. The external expression is irreversible; it cannot be changed. But the direction of the will, once turned against God, can be turned back to Him by repentance, prior to the moment of death. Hence, the irreversible expresssion of the act of the will that took place at one moment can be seen as external to a later act of the will in which repentance for the prior act is expressed, and this seems to be what the priest intended, since he goes on to say "no deed is too evil to be beyond the forgiveness of Christ." Now, if this is what the priest meant, then he is not guilty of teaching "once saved always saved." His statement lacks theological precision, but such precision would be lost on the congregation in such a venue, as the uproar raised by the homily indicates.
"Because God is merciful he makes allowance for the spiritual, mental, and emotionaldespair that leads to suicide. God is able to read the heart, to know the whole
ReplyDeletetruth of a person's life, and thereby to pass sentence with mercy. God knows something we must discipline ourselves to do in these moments –he knows not to judge a person's entire life on the basis of the worst and last choice the person made. God can look at the totality of a human being's life and celebrate all the good that came from it, even while taking seriously the tragic choice that ended everything. And then he shows his mercy and love in ways beyond our limited understanding."
Words and judgments always have a context, and this priest was trying to confirm the truth about suicide as being intrinsically evil while offering consolation to bereaved parents, relatives, and friends of the deceased. A homily in this context need not be a theological treatise.
St. what Thomas Aquinas and many recognize as 'antecedent passion' or antecedent emotions definitely can affect free choice and lessen liberty.
Now, it might be that a person has lesser or greater culpability for failing to having addressed tempering those emotions or passions, but only the Holy Trinity could and can know such concerning the 'interior' act.
Overall, the priest giving this homily condemned the act of suicide as such, but he tempered any presumptive judgments as to the 'interior' act of this young man. We, for the most part, only discern the dynamics of the 'exterior' act, but a full consideration of the 'interior' act in all its dimensions is not accessible to us.
Thus, for example, if someone confronted with the possibility of martyrdom fails to fulfill such due to fear, it is only the Holy Trinity alone Who can determine whether culpability exists in this agent and to what degree.
Z w
ReplyDeleteThere can be nothing more loving than to offer prayers and the sacrifice of the Mass. Suicide is a mortal sin and only diminished personal culpability such as mental illness or coercion mitigates this.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've learned to do over the years is not say [XYZ] is a "mortal sin". Mortal sin is committed when one culpably does something of grave matter.
DeleteSo when discussing the type of action, I say it is "grave matter". Whether or not it was a mortal sin cannot be known.