Catholic perspective on 1 Cor 6

[Kliska]

I was curious to know what the Catholic take on this is:

1 Cor 6:1 *Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints ? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?*

The only denomination I know that has a definite teaching on this is the Amish. They don’t involve the courts of their country in internal disagreements, even most illegal activity done against them. They also don’t like to involve courts when they have issues with the “English” or outsiders. I’ve always wondered why we, as Christians, don’t hear this taught often, at least I haven’t. Anyone else? Is this one thing Canon Law touches upon?

 

[steido01]

**The only denomination I know that has a definite teaching on this is the Amish. ** They don’t involve the courts of their country in internal disagreements, even most illegal activity done against them. They also don’t like to involve courts when they have issues with the “English” or outsiders. I’ve always wondered why we, as Christians, don’t hear this taught often, at least I haven’t. Anyone else? Is this one thing Canon Law touches upon?

Speak for yourself. The Lutheran churches have their own dispute resolution measures that exist to settle issues of doctrine, authority and good order within the church.

Between members, it is expected that pastors teach this method of resolution and even act as mediator or arbitrator, if necessary (a great example of this is in Bo Giertz’s Hammer of God - but I won’t spoil the book for you).

Outside the church is a different matter. We deal with people who may or may not be Christian, and the world would rather sue you into legal submission.

 

[Kliska]

Speak for yourself.

I was, hence the “only denomination I know.”

The Lutheran churches have their own dispute resolution measures that exist to settle issues of doctrine, authority and good order within the church.

Between members, it is expected that pastors teach this method of resolution and even act as mediator or arbitrator, if necessary (a great example of this is in Bo Giertz’s Hammer of God - but I won’t spoil the book for you).

Outside the church is a different matter. We deal with people who may or may not be Christian, and the world would rather sue you into legal submission.

Would that hold true for those within a congregation, the whole denomination, or all of Christendom? Meaning, if a Lutheran and a Methodist get into a wreck and it is the Methodist’s fault, but the Methodist denies it and will not pay for the damage caused, would the Lutheran be guided by the Lutheran church in their reaction? Or, would that happen mainly if it were two people in the congregation? In short, what is the practical legal application?

 

[steido01]

Would that hold true for those within a congregation, the whole denomination, or all of Christendom? Meaning, if a Lutheran and a Methodist get into a wreck and it is the Methodist’s fault, but the Methodist denies it and will not pay for the damage caused, would the Lutheran be guided by the Lutheran church in their reaction? Or, would that happen mainly if it were two people in the congregation? In short, what is the practical legal application?

Good question. I think we’re overlooking a clearer command that came directly from Christ’s mouth; “Render to Caesar’s that which is Caesar’s.” Many states (at least here in the US) require the reporting of crimes and traffic incidents. Failure to do so is often itself a crime. Because God has instituted earthly rulers, it is our duty to obey them wherever it does not conflict with our freedom to practice our religion.

Interestingly enough, some governments have dabbled in letting religious communities settle their own non-ecclesial affairs (google “Restorative Justice”).

 

[pablope]

I was curious to know what the Catholic take on this is:

1 Cor 6:1 *Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints ? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?*

The only denomination I know that has a definite teaching on this is the Amish. They don’t involve the courts of their country in internal disagreements, even most illegal activity done against them. They also don’t like to involve courts when they have issues with the “English” or outsiders. I’ve always wondered why we, as Christians, don’t hear this taught often, at least I haven’t. Anyone else? Is this one thing Canon Law touches upon?

From the UCCB:

• [6:1–11] Christians at Corinth are suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 6:1–9) betrays Paul’s indignation over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community. 6:2–3: The principle to which Paul appeals is an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ the judgment of the world (cf. Dn 7:22, 27). Hence they ought to be able to settle minor disputes within the community.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I was curious to know what the Catholic take on this is:

1 Cor 6:1 *Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints ? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?*

The only denomination I know that has a definite teaching on this is the Amish. They don’t involve the courts of their country in internal disagreements, even most illegal activity done against them. They also don’t like to involve courts when they have issues with the “English” or outsiders. I’ve always wondered why we, as Christians, don’t hear this taught often, at least I haven’t. Anyone else? Is this one thing Canon Law touches upon?

I am not quite sure what you’re asking. They are people much more competent than I to answer, and I hope they will. Thanks for asking though!

 

[DaveBj]

From the UCCB:

• [6:1–11] Christians at Corinth are suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 6:1–9) betrays Paul’s indignation over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community. 6:2–3: The principle to which Paul appeals is an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ the judgment of the world (cf. Dn 7:22, 27). Hence they ought to be able to settle minor disputes within the community.

Carrying this a step farther, things changed in the ensuing centuries – Christians were and are no longer bringing their cases before pagan judges, because the vast majority of the judges were and are at least nominally Christian. Nominally.

 

[Kliska]

Good question. I think we’re overlooking a clearer command that came directly from Christ’s mouth; “Render to Caesar’s that which is Caesar’s.” Many states (at least here in the US) require the reporting of crimes and traffic incidents. Failure to do so is often itself a crime. Because God has instituted earthly rulers, it is our duty to obey them wherever it does not conflict with our freedom to practice our religion.

Interestingly enough, some governments have dabbled in letting religious communities settle their own non-ecclesial affairs (google “Restorative Justice”).

Yes, our gov’t here in the US has made allowances for certain religious communities to settle their own affairs, if they choose. I’ve heard of such in the Amish communities, Native American communities, and somewhat in the Hasidic population. We hear of course about Sharia law and the debates there. I was just curious as to anyone else’s teachings in their own denominations/churches.

The most “concrete” mention in these specific scriptures is to being defrauded, which seems to imply monetary issues at the very least.

From the UCCB:

• [6:1–11] Christians at Corinth are suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 6:1–9) betrays Paul’s indignation over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community. 6:2–3: The principle to which Paul appeals is an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ the judgment of the world (cf. Dn 7:22, 27). Hence they ought to be able to settle minor disputes within the community.

I wonder the practical application of this?

I am not quite sure what you’re asking. They are people much more competent than I to answer, and I hope they will. Thanks for asking though!

Thanks for taking the time to trying to help!

 

[Beryllos]

Carrying this a step farther, things changed in the ensuing centuries – Christians were and are no longer bringing their cases before pagan judges, because the vast majority of the judges were and are at least nominally Christian. Nominally.

Following on that… I don’t know what the courts were like in that time and place, but it’s possible that they were corrupted by bribery and favoritism, and influenced by social class. Since then criminal and civil courts in the Western world have evolved towards Christian notions of justice. Not totally, of course (think of abortion laws), but on the millennial timescale there has been progress.

So I am thinking Paul was concerned about corrupt courts or unjust laws, and this passage of 1 Cor may not apply in a literal sense today, but at another level it is true and we do well to examine it.

 

[phil19034]

I’m going to research these verses a little bit more tonight.

However, it’s important to remember that not everything in St. Paul’s Epistles is Dogma. Some times he is discussing Discipline for the time of his letters, and was not meant for eternity. While other verses are Dogma and were meant for eternity.

It’s also important to remember that 1 Cor is one long letter written by St. Paul. The Church didn’t edit out parts that were not dogmatic or doctrinal. The letter doesn’t contain errors, but since Discipline changes to meet the needs of the time, some of the disciplinary practices may not be applicable today.

Either way, I will research more tonight. If I discover something worth posting, I will.

God Bless!