The morality of lawsuits

[kelvinf]

1 Cor 6:1,4-8 (RSV-CE)

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?
I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

The conclusions I draw from the above are:

1. It is immoral to haul a believer into pagan (secular) courts.
2. The Church should be or is in the position to resolve disputes.
3. We should learn to let go.

What do you think?

 

[Cetil]

I don’t agree. I think St. Paul is referring to the courts of his day which were notorious for the injustice that happened there. Courts today in many places are far from perfect but they are not as bad in some places as in St. Paul’s day. One is entitled, even obliged at times to stand up for your rights. The Church itself uses the court system at times. Currently, the Vatican requires bishops to report cases of sexual abuse to civil authorities. That shows confidence in the court system on the part of the Church.

C.

 

[JRKH]

While I agree that it can be hard to compare the systems of Pauls day to the systems we have today, I don’t think there are not lessons that can be learned from the Passage.
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren
Look at what Paul is talking about here - That the faithful are sinning agianst their brothers bu defrauding and then not forgiving each other going to court etc…The whole vicious circle.
It brings disrepute upon the faithful and the faith.

I’m reminded in this of the small claims court type shows on TV. How often does one look at these things and think - How petty - How rediculous that this trouble got this far…

Of course there may be times when a lawsuit is necessary to redress a wrong where teh matter is quite complicated, but even here the Christian needs to seek ONLY that which is necessary and should not seek “punative damages”, that is damages to punish the other person.

Peace
James

 

[Georgia]

The fault here is failing to practice moderation. We have all heard of lawsuits that are nothing more than trying to win the great American lottery by getting paid to go away. People are now suing one another over the most trivial of issues. An example would be the attorney who sued for millions of dollars over the laundry misplacing his pants.

If there is a legitimate claim, a lawsuit may be the only way to get the matter settled. However, using a suit as an opportunity to get money that is not really due is evil and it costs us all. I once heard that over one-third of the price of a ladder is to pay off those who fall. Should they sue? If the rungs broke, yes, but if they fell off it without it being a defect, they should not. Some advocate a loser pays system in America to winnow the chaff from the real issues that should go before the bar.

 

[Cetil]

I agree these suits have gotten out of hand sometimes but I’m not sure that punitive damages would be wrong. I would like to hear the opinions of some moral theologians on that.

C.

 

[kelvinf]

I don’t agree. I think St. Paul is referring to the courts of his day which were notorious for the injustice that happened there. Courts today in many places are far from perfect but they are not as bad in some places as in St. Paul’s day. One is entitled, even obliged at times to stand up for your rights. The Church itself uses the court system at times. Currently, the Vatican requires bishops to report cases of sexual abuse to civil authorities. That shows confidence in the court system on the part of the Church.

C.

If there were no secular laws that require abuse cases to be reported to civil authorities, I don’t think the Church would be doing that since she has her own system in place for such issues. And I don’t also think that such an act necessary shows confidence in courts on the part of the Church.
I believe reporting a case (like murder…) to the authorities is not the same as hauling a believer/Christian/brother to court.

I believe that passage also applies today especially verse 7. This is reiterated in 1 Peter 3:17 (RSV-CE)

For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

IMO, people who go in for punitive damages are trying to reap what they did not sow.
I am also interested in having the opinions of others on this issue.

 

[otjm]

Proof texting should be left to the province of the Protestants. Drawing one line out of scripture and trying to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act is not how the Church approaches the morality of issues, and if the Church does not approach it that way, we would be well advised to not do so ourselves.

 

[Cetil]

If there were no secular laws that require abuse cases to be reported to civil authorities, I don’t think the Church would be doing that since she has her own system in place for such issues. And I don’t also think that such an act necessary shows confidence in courts on the part of the Church.
I believe reporting a case (like murder…) to the authorities is not the same as hauling a believer/Christian/brother to court.

I believe that passage also applies today especially verse 7. This is reiterated in 1 Peter 3:17 (RSV-CE)

IMO, people who go in for punitive damages are trying to reap what they did not sow.
I am also interested in having the opinions of others on this issue.

The fact remains that the Church does not apply the quote(s) as you do. We have no dogmatic definition of clerical immunity either so my opinion still stands. The Church makes no objection whatever to the trial of a priest nowadays for most offenses.
If I were defrauded by a fellow Catholic and that person would not settle with me outside of court, I have no problem taking them to court. No one gets “hauled” to court. They get a summons. The Church has positively NO arena in which the laity can settle disputes among themselves that I’m aware of.
The Church makes use of the courts all the time and regularly files “friend of the court” briefs in matters which concern them.
Priests are making use of the civil courts right now when they believe they are falsely accused of sexual offenses. There are quite a few cases pending such as that right now.
The Church makes positively no objection to that either. If the pope and bishops do not object, then there is no problem.

C.

 

[Cetil]

Proof texting should be left to the province of the Protestants. Drawing one line out of scripture and trying to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act is not how the Church approaches the morality of issues, and if the Church does not approach it that way, we would be well advised to not do so ourselves.

Amen! I agree.

C.

 

[Yeoman]

I don’t think we can say that merely being involved in litigation is sinful, but there are uncomfortable lessons we might want to draw from this reference.

Looking at this from the inside, as a trial lawyer, I’ve frankly become more and more uncomfortable over the years with the degree to which we lawyers feel that our ethical duties are basically in line with the thinking of that of the Prussian General Staff. As long as what we do fits within the Rules of Professional Responsibility its okay. That sort of logic is fairly fuzzy, and it allows us to do a fair number of things that perhaps we should question.

Beyond that, the lawyer’s blind faith in the “Adversarial System”, which is the system that predominates in English Common Law jurisdictions, tends to spread to the litigants, who often tend to come to believe that whatever the lawyer does to gain money, or avoid paying it, is okay, because that’s the system.

Well, that’s my minor thoughts on the general topic of lawsuits anyhow. As otherwise noted in a post I just posed elsewhere on the forum, I’m sort of at the end of my rope after doing this for 20 years, all as a litigator, so my view may be highly skewed.

 

[kelvinf]

The fact remains that the Church does not apply the quote(s) as you do. We have no dogmatic definition of clerical immunity either so my opinion still stands. The Church makes no objection whatever to the trial of a priest nowadays for most offenses.
If I were defrauded by a fellow Catholic and that person would not settle with me outside of court, I have no problem taking them to court. No one gets “hauled” to court. They get a summons. The Church has positively NO arena in which the laity can settle disputes among themselves that I’m aware of.
The Church makes use of the courts all the time and regularly files “friend of the court” briefs in matters which concern them.
Priests are making use of the civil courts right now when they believe they are falsely accused of sexual offenses. There are quite a few cases pending such as that right now.
The Church makes positively no objection to that either. If the pope and bishops do not object, then there is no problem.

C.

Mother Church makes no public objection to a lot of other issues. She is mostly loud when it comes to contraception, abortion, homosexuality…It’s just like the way she handles excommunication. Some are made public, others are just automatic.
The only difference I see between to summon and to haul is just that one is informal.

Ok, this passage was the 1st reading on 07th September 2010. If this passage does not hold, why would it be part of the liturgy? They would have completely removed verses 1,4-8.

On that day, I listen to the homily on NAB but the priest did not touch on the 1st reading.
I listen to the homily on Catholic.org and the priest touched on this passage. (03:49mins)

…For St. Paul says that there are many within the Body of Christ who drag their brothers before the magistrates of this world…

Another priest blogged on the passage here.

If the Church has another interpretation of that passage, I would be glad to know it.

 

[Cetil]

Mother Church makes no public objection to a lot of other issues. She is mostly loud when it comes to contraception, abortion, homosexuality…It’s just like the way she handles excommunication. Some are made public, others are just automatic.
The only difference I see between to summon and to haul is just that one is informal.

Ok, this passage was the 1st reading on 07th September 2010. If this passage does not hold, why would it be part of the liturgy? They would have completely removed verses 1,4-8.

On that day, I listen to the homily on NAB but the priest did not touch on the 1st reading.
I listen to the homily on Catholic.org and the priest touched on this passage. (03:49mins)

Another priest blogged on the passage here.

If the Church has another interpretation of that passage, I would be glad to know it.

It seems you are simply being evasive. As I have pointed out the Church uses the law courts and does not enjoin believers from using them. Indeed, the Church has founded law schools at most of its universities and no where does it tell believers not to make use of the courts to settle disputes among themselves. There is NOTHING in the Catechism that enjoins us from using the courts. As noted there are quite a few cases right now of priests suing to restore their good names against Catholics. No bishop or pope has said they cannot do that. In St. Paul’s day he was concerned because the courts in those days meted out a lot of injustice and it was injuring the Christian community. Courts today are somewhat better though far from perfect.
The Church makes distinctions between Paul’s day and ours. There are passages in St. Paul such as in Ephesians, Philemon, Colossians etc. in which Paul tolerates the existence of slavery. The Church today condemns slavery, as it did at Vatican II. Are we then to think that the Church is wrong and we must revert to St. Paul’s day??
Find a single moral theologian who agrees with your interpretation of this passage from Corinthians. I don’t know of any. As a previous poster noted, your approach is Protestant.

C.

 

[StrawberryJam]

1 Cor 6:1,4-8 (RSV-CE)

The conclusions I draw from the above are:

1. It is immoral to haul a believer into pagan (secular) courts.
2. The Church should be or is in the position to resolve disputes.
3. We should learn to let go.

What do you think?

What do you mean by being a believer into pagan secular courts?

I am so confused by what you mean by this.

Should you not suffer and offer it up as Jesus did? Did Jesus teach his followers to defy the laws in the lands they lived in?

 

[JRKH]

What do you mean by being a believer into pagan secular courts?

I am so confused by what you mean by this.

Should you not suffer and offer it up as Jesus did? Did Jesus teach his followers to defy the laws in the lands they lived in?

Jesus did not teach his followers to defy the laws of the lands they lived in. The thing to remember in this passage is about one “brother” (believer) taking another “brother” (believer) into the pagan (unbelievers) courts. Such actions, in Paul’s view, brought shame and scandal on the Christian community and thus should be avoided. He asks, in the passage, whether there is someone within the community who was wise, and perhaps trained, who could arbitrate any matters needing resolution? Such would be preferable to going to pagan court.

And Yes, he also mentions that it is preferable for a Christian to suffer being defrauded rather than letting hate, envy, greed and other sins and scandals tarnish The Community of Brethren.

That is how I read it.

Peace
James

 

[LilyM]

Remember the OP is from Germany, the court system in European countries is run quite differently to the adversarial style that Americans, Brits and Australians such as myself are used to.

Interestingly, European style legal systems and Catholic church legal procedures share a common ancestor in old Roman law - and if that’s the system of choice for the Church then it can’t be too dreadful even when used for secular purposes, can it?

And as has been pointed out, Jesus did indeed tell us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, including abiding by the laws and legal processes of our countries - unless such laws or processes command or force us to sin, of course.

 

[kelvinf]

It seems you are simply being evasive. As I have pointed out the Church uses the law courts and does not enjoin believers from using them. Indeed, the Church has founded law schools at most of its universities and no where does it tell believers not to make use of the courts to settle disputes among themselves. There is NOTHING in the Catechism that enjoins us from using the courts. As noted there are quite a few cases right now of priests suing to restore their good names against Catholics. No bishop or pope has said they cannot do that. In St. Paul’s day he was concerned because the courts in those days meted out a lot of injustice and it was injuring the Christian community. Courts today are somewhat better though far from perfect.
The Church makes distinctions between Paul’s day and ours. There are passages in St. Paul such as in Ephesians, Philemon, Colossians etc. in which Paul tolerates the existence of slavery. The Church today condemns slavery, as it did at Vatican II. Are we then to think that the Church is wrong and we must revert to St. Paul’s day??
Find a single moral theologian who agrees with your interpretation of this passage from Corinthians. I don’t know of any. As a previous poster noted, your approach is Protestant.

C.

In 2008, the Vatican introduced 7 new deadly sins. I wonder whether all these new sins are recorded in the CCC. I don’t think the CCC contains everything.

For sure, the bulk of the NT is made up of the Pauline epistles which were either addressed to specific individuals or to certain Christian communities at that time. True, society has changed (really changed) and not everything that St. Paul instructed still applies today. So how do we know what applies and what doesn’t?

For me, whatever appears in the liturgy rings a bell in my head. True, the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. If I am aware of the Church’s interpretation of a given passage, then I will stick to it. In the absence of a public interpretation from the Church, I will try to interpret a passage by myself with the help of Bible comments, homilies––from priests, who by their very nature, have the power to interpret Holy Scripture, and others––like asking the opinion of others on a forum like this.

My understanding is that, there are different senses of Scripture. The literal (which is the initial stage, the foundation) and the spiritual senses. The literal sense of the passage above is very clear. My understanding of the moral sense (spiritual) of Scripture is that, it draws warnings against sin and vice from Scripture, as well as inspirations to pursue holiness and purity. And as I said before, there is a reason why we have such passages in the liturgy.
The Holy Spirit is trying to tell us something and that is what we have to decipher from such passages.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 6:7[/BIBLEDRB]
“A fault”… Lawsuits can hardly ever be without a fault, on the one side or the other; and oftentimes on both sides. (Challoner)

I agree that the courts today are far more better than in the past but that’s not really my concern. A lot more can be drawn from the passage (1 Cor 1,4-8) besides the calibre of secular courts.

What I find funny is how you and the other poster attribute my interpretation to that of a protestant. It’s not my interpretation per se. It’s my understanding of the resources I have come across re the passage.

---

[SIGN]I do welcome other interpretations. That’s more or less the aim of this thread. [/SIGN](And not really about how courts function in different parts of the globe––not my concern.)

 

[Cetil]

Essentially what you do is simply to ignore points made which you cannot answer. Which is why I can’t really spend any more time on this. You need to study some theology and talk to some real moral theologians. And yes, you are taking a Protestant approach.
Your argument about “new” deadly sins is thoroughly superficial and shows you don’t consider these things thoughtfully or in any depth. I don’t know where you got the notion that “the Vatican introduced” “new” deadly sins. In fact, what was stated was not new and simply derived from the list of deadly sins which can mean something different in our time as opposed to earlier times. We can see pollution of the environment as a sin now because we know how bad the consequences of that can be which we our forbears did not know 100 years ago. There is nothing new about abortion, that has been condemned by the Church since the earliest times. The seven deadly sins are simply presented in a more modern context as certain of those sins can now be committed with new technology. What exactly is “new” about abortion??
Your problem is that you took the media presentation of new sins as the Vatican’s pronouncement! All we had was a statement of Archbishop Gerotti but not a magisterial statement from the Pope.
You may certainly interpret St. Paul’s passage as you wish. But no pope and no bishop has taken your position in a teaching document addressed to the universal Church. And as already noted and demonstrated the Church in actual practice uses the law courts and DOES NOT enjoin anyone else from using them.
So what the Church chose a certain passage from Corinthians to be in the liturgy and that rings a bell in your head?? I’ll leave that one alone. It of course does not mean your interpretation of the passage is accurate or binding on anyone else. As stated by two of us here, this is a matter for moral theology of which you seem quite ignorant. I suggest AGAIN that you discuss it with a MORAL theologian. I won’t be back to this thread, this is truly a waste of time.

C.