Are lawsuits unchristian?

[BJRumph]

Surf:
The example that I found flawed was the monetary one, not the injury case. You were applying the principle used in the injury to apply it to the debt example, which isn’t strictly applicable, but there was another gospel teaching that did apply, as I pointed out.

It is good to rely on clarification from the Church. The answers here are based on a question that did not ask the Church, and so you got a lot of laiety responses (and in my case, not even precisely a Catholic one, as I am still waiting on my Rite of Welcoming )

777:
What exactly are you asking? Do I believe we should treat Osama the same as I would a Christian? Then yes; his beliefs, or more precisely his difference in belief, does not grant me (according to the Gospel) the ability to treat him differently because he is some form of muslim. A general aknowledgement of this principle is even expressed in our warped society in its rejection of going out and killing all muslims because Osama is not Christian, despite the occasional back-handed call to do so. He is hunted, not because of his religion, but because of his actions.

Whether his actions warrant the treatment he is receiving is a wholly different, and very off-topic, question.

In my view, I would treat a Christian the same as Osama has been, should it have been a Christian that performed the same acts (had I chosen to react in the same manner as was done to begin with, that is).

As Jesus pointed out, everyone loves their loved ones, and hates their enemies, what is so special about that? We are to love our enemies; and that is Holy. Elsewhere, He points out that God sends rain to Jew and gentile alike, as well as sun; why would we, who seek to do as He does, think we should be different?

If my natural inclination is to treat Christians well, better than non-christians, but the Christian teaching is to treat everyone the same, then I should treat everyone equally well.

At any rate, the point I was aguing here was the fallicious one raised that it is wrong to sue Christians, but non-christian are fair game. How many of you who are contemplating suing someone stop and ask, “What religion are you,again?” when making that decision. None. Why? because, at best, you realize it shouldn’t matter under Gospel principle; and at worst you wouldn’t accept that they were “true Christians”, because if they were they would not have given you reason to sue them in the first place. As someone else pointed out, it could easily be said that, in acting in such a manner, that I was not the “true Christian”.

 

[surfinpure]

BJ,

I think it’s important to keep in mind that often times an injury case is a case of debt. This occurs when a party is wrongfully injured and requires susequent treatment, which can be very, very expensive. If a person creates a debt for another person (in this case by injury), I cannot see why he should not be required to pay the debt for which he is responsible.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Who says part of our Christian obligation is to bring others to justice?

Christ, as far as I know, never advocated calling authorities to deal with any evil. Yes, and look where it got Him. Do we really want to allow other people to unjustly take our things or our very lives? No. That’s why there is worldly justice, so sinners can protect their worldly body and property from other sinners. If we truly were perfect, we’d willingly allow them to kill us and not raise a finger in retaliation or “justice.”

We use lawsuits to protect ourselves from each other because we do not want to go through what Jesus did, and don’t like to see others do so.

True justice is love that Christ teaches us. The worldly system deals out worldly punishment for worldly reason, and I can’t say I have a problem with it. Sure I might use the law against an aggressor, but I will do so knowing that it is not pure faith like Jesus had. That’s OK; I guess sometimes I have to cut off the soldier’s ear real quick before Jesus stops me.

Alan

Alan

 

[Christian4life]

Okay, I can think of ONE example of a righteous person going to court in the Bible, in the old testament, Esther went to the king about Haemon and in order to stick up for her people several times.

So if it is a righteous cause…maybe…

 

[otm]

Christ spoke of mercy and forgiveness.

He also spoke of justice.

Lawsuits are a way of maintaining some semblance of peace and justice in society. Christ did not condemn the courts or say they should not exist; although the story of the widow and the judge certainly has within it the theme that the judge has a duty to be just (as you may recall, he ruled in favor of the widow not out of a sense of justice, but because she wore him down).

To suggest that lawsuits are immoral, or somethow lacking in the Gospel demands of charity, forgiveness and mercy, is to read the Gospel in a very one-sided manner.

 

[surfinpure]

otm: Thank you for saying what I’ve been trying to say.

Christian4Life: And don’t forget that St. Paul defended himself in court several times.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

otm:

Lawsuits are a way of maintaining some semblance of peace and justice in society. Christ did not condemn the courts or say they should not exist; although the story of the widow and the judge certainly has within it the theme that the judge has a duty to be just (as you may recall, he ruled in favor of the widow not out of a sense of justice, but because she wore him down).

That is correct. They are a compromise between freedom and security. I think we can take from your example that a worldly judge is not always going to deliver a morally just opinion, but are swayed by selfish concerns at times in determining how they behave. It’s almost like Christ is saying that worldly judges are corrupt – perhaps a certain amount unavoidably, just for being human…

To suggest that lawsuits are immoral, or somethow lacking in the Gospel demands of charity, forgiveness and mercy, is to read the Gospel in a very one-sided manner.

The Gospel is that lawsuits are to be avoided if at all possible. The fact that justice is not always served on a righteous basis is probably one of the reasons we should avoid going to law. They are not instrinsically immoral, and they do have a good and useful function to keep order in society. They are really not designed for matters of the spirit, so the effects of a lawsuit on any given spirit cannot be predicted, or even presumed to be healthy for it.

Alan

 

[surfinpure]

AlanFromWichita:

They are really not designed for matters of the spirit, so the effects of a lawsuit on any given spirit cannot be predicted, or even presumed to be healthy for it.

A very good point, Alan. I believe many people initiate a lawsuit believing it will bring healing, whereas in many cases it does just the opposite. While I believe there are legitimate circumstances for taking a matter to court, no person should do this without first examining his own intentions very carefully.

There was a point in my own case (that listed below) when everyone was telling me to “sue the scoundrel,” and I refused, because I could not bring myself to do it for the right reasons at that time. The memories of the injury were so fresh and my emotions so charged that any legal action would have carried a heavy, dark cloud of vengeance over its head. May it never be! So I waited for several months to revisit the question, allowing my emotions to ebb and forgiveness to take root. After that, the decision was one of practicality and business, no longer the crusade it would have been had I followed my carnal impulses.

 

[BJRumph]

As my own opinion as to why Jesus said what he said about lawsuits, it has a lot to do with your premise of “many people initiate a lawsuit believing it will bring healing”.

The point is, no legal suit can bring healing; only satiate hidden or disguised desires for retributive justice (ie revenge). Only God can provide the actual healing being saught, not the lawyers.

Therefore, I think Jesus’ call to not participate in these matters is so that we correctly place our trust & hope in God, not in the hands of men.

As this is a theology discussion, I won’t go into the “practicality and business” aspect of it; as my own wife doesn’t usually agree with me on those; and I can tell you certainly won’t either

But again, it is just my rationale for why Jesus would teach us such “hard sayings”. Not worth much more than what you can value it at .

Caritas numquam excidit

 

[otm]

BJRumph:

As my own opinion as to why Jesus said what he said about lawsuits, it has a lot to do with your premise of “many people initiate a lawsuit believing it will bring healing”.

The point is, no legal suit can bring healing; only satiate hidden or disguised desires for retributive justice (ie revenge). Only God can provide the actual healing being saught, not the lawyers.

Therefore, I think Jesus’ call to not participate in these matters is so that we correctly place our trust & hope in God, not in the hands of men.

As this is a theology discussion, I won’t go into the “practicality and business” aspect of it; as my own wife doesn’t usually agree with me on those; and I can tell you certainly won’t either

But again, it is just my rationale for why Jesus would teach us such “hard sayings”. Not worth much more than what you can value it at .

Caritas numquam excidit

I have tried to teach my children not to use the words “always” and “never”. I would suggest that if you think that no lawsuit can bring healing, then you have not participated or observed very many lawsuits.

 

[BJRumph]

Feel free to disagree, I did clearly state my last post as my own opinion.

Obviously it is not possible for me to compete with you on experience; however I have had enough to validate my hypothesis over time to my own satisfaction. I do not think, however, that it will do anyone any good for us to start arguing about who has the most qualifying experience. I’ll concede the point

Opinions were asked for; I gave mine. That you disagree is no need for ad hominum. Addressing your perceptions of me does not answer the position I put forth. You disagree with that position, but have offered nothing to refute it. While that is certainly allowed, it doen’t make for very enlightening or cordial conversation.

You spoke vaguely of Jesus teaching about Justice, however from my own memory, I can only think of instances where Justice is something that comes from God, and is expected in the Kingdom; but not overly stressed/expected in this world. Yes, we, as Christians, are to deal justly with all; but that doesn’t mean we have His leave to force everyone (or anyone) to deal justly with us.

A lawsuit is simply, and unavoidably, an effort to do presicely that (indeed, it can do nothing else). Sure, the World will say it is your just due; your entitled; “sue the bastard”; but Christ has already made it clear that that is not how we, as Christians, should do business.

Even if it is just not philosophically something one is willing to accept just so God will be pleased, there is always the self-serving aspect of it all; “Judge not lest ye be…”; “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive …”; or even the parable about the servant who received grace, only to turn around and not extend grace to their own servant, remember what happened to him? Sure, not as noble or holy as doing for the joy of following Christ, but still teaches the same thing. As Christians, we are expected to show unto others grace when we have been wronged. He doesn’t provide caveats, scales, or other means for us to determine where the boundary is; except in responding to that troublesome question about how many times we are to forgive…

When Grace is the only thing we have that will bring us home, does that not mean we must extend grace to others as well? Christ gave us His own example (or do you think He couldn’t run legal circles around those silly Sanhedren? Like He says in an old Carmen song “I wrote the Book”).

To argue that the suit, in itself, does not address morality, and therefore engaging in a lawsuit carries no moral value is invalid. The question was not “is it morally wrong for a Christian…”, but is it “unchristian”. According to Christ’s teachings, the answer is “yes, it is unchristian.” Weather you feel that one of Christ’s points that he tried to convey to us is that all our actions have a moral value or not doesn’t even come into play (though might be a fun discussion elsewhere )

Agreed, we all follow where, in our imperfection, we can; but the question was not about our level of attainment in following Christ, but in where His path lay. “Are Lawsuits unchristian?” I say “Yes, regardless if the other party is a Christian or not.”

 

[grandma]

Lawsuits are often used to teach a lesson to a business or individual to change their ways or pay the price. If a business causes damage or death by negligence, oftentimes the only way to get their attention is to sue. This is often enough to make them clean up their act. Grandma

 

[otm]

BJRumph:

Feel free to disagree, I did clearly state my last post as my own opinion.

Obviously it is not possible for me to compete with you on experience; however I have had enough to validate my hypothesis over time to my own satisfaction. I do not think, however, that it will do anyone any good for us to start arguing about who has the most qualifying experience. I’ll concede the point

Opinions were asked for; I gave mine. That you disagree is no need for ad hominum. Addressing your perceptions of me does not answer the position I put forth. You disagree with that position, but have offered nothing to refute it. While that is certainly allowed, it doen’t make for very enlightening or cordial conversation.

You spoke vaguely of Jesus teaching about Justice, however from my own memory, I can only think of instances where Justice is something that comes from God, and is expected in the Kingdom; but not overly stressed/expected in this world. Yes, we, as Christians, are to deal justly with all; but that doesn’t mean we have His leave to force everyone (or anyone) to deal justly with us.

A lawsuit is simply, and unavoidably, an effort to do presicely that (indeed, it can do nothing else). Sure, the World will say it is your just due; your entitled; “sue the bastard”; but Christ has already made it clear that that is not how we, as Christians, should do business.

Even if it is just not philosophically something one is willing to accept just so God will be pleased, there is always the self-serving aspect of it all; “Judge not lest ye be…”; “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive …”; or even the parable about the servant who received grace, only to turn around and not extend grace to their own servant, remember what happened to him? Sure, not as noble or holy as doing for the joy of following Christ, but still teaches the same thing. As Christians, we are expected to show unto others grace when we have been wronged. He doesn’t provide caveats, scales, or other means for us to determine where the boundary is; except in responding to that troublesome question about how many times we are to forgive…

When Grace is the only thing we have that will bring us home, does that not mean we must extend grace to others as well? Christ gave us His own example (or do you think He couldn’t run legal circles around those silly Sanhedren? Like He says in an old Carmen song “I wrote the Book”).

To argue that the suit, in itself, does not address morality, and therefore engaging in a lawsuit carries no moral value is invalid. The question was not “is it morally wrong for a Christian…”, but is it “unchristian”. According to Christ’s teachings, the answer is “yes, it is unchristian.” Weather you feel that one of Christ’s points that he tried to convey to us is that all our actions have a moral value or not doesn’t even come into play (though might be a fun discussion elsewhere )

Agreed, we all follow where, in our imperfection, we can; but the question was not about our level of attainment in following Christ, but in where His path lay. “Are Lawsuits unchristian?” I say “Yes, regardless if the other party is a Christian or not.”

I don’t believe that I made any ad hominem statements; in fact, I tried to be very careful in how I stated it. If you took it as an attack against you, then I would suggest that you re-read it.

Law suits take anywhere from weeks (traffic tickets - they are a lawsuit by the state with you as the defendant) to literally years to get started. The length of time it takes to get into court has a tendency to allow for some, if not quite a bit, of cooling off of the passions.

I believe you mis-perceive something of lawsuits, and that is that justice is not just an issue between the wrong doer and the victim; it involves an element of society also. The fact that there is a legal system in place, and that it works, is due to in part the fact that people bring lawsuits to redress wrongdoing. That in and of itself has an impact on others, who, lacking a lawsuit to stop the behavior on one individual, may choose to imitate the behavior of that wrong doer.

To give a plain example; it was not until enough lawsuits were brought against the Church that the Church made a concerted effort to deal with priests who abuse children.

I am not arguing that multi million dollar lawsuits are christian, but it took a series of them to get the attention fo the bishops and get them collectively off the dime and do something.

Some bishops already were doing something about it. Others appeared to be hoping the whole thing would blow over. You may call it un-Christian; but I consider it highly Christian to protect the innocent, which is what will occur if the bishops can get a handle on the abusive priests. and that is what results when victims sue. Others get the message. Obviously not all others, but enoght to keep things down to a low roar.

 

[surfinpure]

Good post, otm.

Since we’ve all been addressing the issue of whether or not a person ought to initiate a lawsuit, I’m now curious to know what we all think about being on the other side of the suit – defending oneself in court.

Is this “un-Christian?” Should we “turn the other cheek” if we are sued? Seems like Christ showed more examples of this type of behavior than the other (not suing anyone who wrongs you).

Thoughts?

 

[Blanka]

BJRumph:

As my own opinion as to why Jesus said what he said about lawsuits, it has a lot to do with your premise of “many people initiate a lawsuit believing it will bring healing”.

The point is, no legal suit can bring healing; only satiate hidden or disguised desires for retributive justice (ie revenge). Only God can provide the actual healing being saught, not the lawyers.

Therefore, I think Jesus’ call to not participate in these matters is so that we correctly place our trust & hope in God, not in the hands of men.

As this is a theology discussion, I won’t go into the “practicality and business” aspect of it; as my own wife doesn’t usually agree with me on those; and I can tell you certainly won’t either

But again, it is just my rationale for why Jesus would teach us such “hard sayings”. Not worth much more than what you can value it at .

Caritas numquam excidit

Well said. I believe that lawsuits are evil and full of greed. The party that sues is essentially saying “I should get what I deserve” or even worse “I should get what I want.” (Yet God did not promise us a perfect life free from hardship, full of comfort and easy money.) The person being sued is essentially persecuted and suffers at the hands of the plaintiff and the suing lawyers. I don’t see any mercy or forgiveness in that scenario. Either we choose to follow Christ and be Christ-like or we can succumb to the voices of the world coaxing us to sue, sue, sue and get the money that we “deserve” (as so many of the lawsuit/lawyer commercials tell us over and over).

 

[surfinpure]

Blanka:

Well said. I believe that lawsuits are evil and full of greed. The party that sues is essentially saying “I should get what I deserve” or even worse “I should get what I want.” (Yet God did not promise us a perfect life free from hardship, full of comfort and easy money.) The person being sued is essentially persecuted and suffers at the hands of the plaintiff and the suing lawyers. I don’t see any mercy or forgiveness in that scenario. Either we choose to follow Christ and be Christ-like or we can succumb to the voices of the world coaxing us to sue, sue, sue and get the money that we “deserve” (as so many of the lawsuit/lawyer commercials tell us over and over).

You’re talking about mass torts and emotional damages cases. You are forgetting about those of us who actually require expesive long-term care, even surgery, because of the actions of another person. This is not greed, this is necessity. Please be careful before judging the attitudes of every person who’s ever initiated a lawsuit. This type of generilization is very unkind.

 

[surfinpure]

I thought you all might be interested in knowing what the Haydock Commentary (a Catholic work) has to say about “turning the other cheek.”

Ver. 39. Not to resist evil;

[6] i.e. not to resist or revenge thyself of him that hath done evil to thee. — Turn him the other cheek. Let him have also thy cloak. These are to be understood as admonitions to Christians, to forgive every one, and to bear patiently all manner of private injuries. But we must not from hence conclude it unlawful for any one to have recourse to the laws, when a man is injured, and cannot have justice by any other means. (Witham) — what is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge; but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor St. Paul, turn the other cheek. (St. John xviii. and Acts xxiii.) (Challoner) — Hence also the Anabaptists infer, that it is not lawful to go to law even for our just rights; and Luther, that Christians ought not to resist the Turks. (Bristow)

 

[BJRumph]

I think everyone can agree that you cannot pass a law forbidding the usage of the law.

You can however, designate actions and behaviors that are contrary to the principle of your beliefs.

As your citation noted:
“what is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge”

The following “but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor St. Paul, turn the other cheek” only points out the absurdity of the premise held within my opening statement.

Even Christ said that He came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. And yet he consistently told us not to rely on it, even far beyond just its simple “man’s justice is flawed” premise, but also on the basis that the law cannot fulfill what is essentially a Divine process. Just as following the law cannot, in itself, garner us entry into heaven, neither can it solve our problems, or heal emotional wounds (despite the relief and satisfaction people feel when they win; afterall, would they feel the same if they lost? If not, then it must be admitted that they were seeking something other than justice.)

And, as an aside; I am more open to suits that involve large numbers of complaintants, as such would suggest that the matter truly is a matter of the common good that the criminal court has failed to address.

Even still, I would be cautious, for myself, as it is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the RCC does not adhere to the “ends justify the means” philosophy. So, that some good may be obtained, does not mean it is the most appropriate means of attaining that good. (yes, I can recognize that in some few cases, a legal suit is the only legitimate means; however if what is sought is only money, then I would seriously question the motive of the suit, especially if the “damages” that caused the suit were non-monetary; removal of a liscence to practice medicine, cleanup and rennovation to community’s damaged property (in those cases of pollution or environmental damage), or even the wrongdoer being forced to pay for the therapy needed in personal injury makes sense if you are out for justice, asking for a check to be issued to yourself, however, really doesn’t fit (as your asking for an ear for an eye))

Anyway; given the nature of Christ’s teachings; I still hold that civil lawsuits would be considered to be against Chrisitan principle, and therefore “unchristian”, despite the fact that Canon Law does not forbid them (as I am assuming that it does not).

As I mentioned in an earlier post; it takes discernment and guidance from God to make a decision to sue or not (but I’d argue that it requires such precisely because the intended action is against Christian principle). A suit can be “unchristian” (as the original question asks) without being “morally” wrong.

 

[surfinpure]

Without splitting hairs with you, BJ, I can say that I agree with your point of view. Justice should be sought when it is absolutely necessary, but I don’t believe it should be our first resort. There are many offenses that I would endure - nay, have endured - rather than bring them before a civil court, for these very reasons. “Un-Christian” is a very hard concept to get my arms around when it comes to such matters, and it seems a little too subjective. With prayer, fasting, study, and good spiritual counsel, I believe we can all know the Christian thing to do in a given circumstance.