Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: solitary Man on January 25, 2024, 06:04:59 PM

Title: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: solitary Man on January 25, 2024, 06:04:59 PM
I know a guy whose ex was making up lies and harassing him with Instagram posts to hurt him at work, so he sued her and won! The church allows, in some cases, these types of legal protective measures?
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: ElwinRansom1970 on January 26, 2024, 06:35:27 AM
Well, yes, of course the Church allows this.

In fact, were these Catholic times in a Catholic country, say France in 1650, and one or both of the parties were in the clerical state, then a double law suit could be initiated -- one in the civil courts and one in the ecclesiastical tribunal.
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: AnthonyPadua on January 26, 2024, 06:43:58 AM
Well, yes, of course the Church allows this.

In fact, were these Catholic times in a Catholic country, say France in 1650, and one or both of the parties were in the clerical state, then a double law suit could be initiated -- one in the civil courts and one in the ecclesiastical tribunal.
Strange. I thought Catholics should avoid lawsuits with each other. Carrying your cross and accepting God's will and all.
Quote
"Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
[1 Corinthians 6:7 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=6&l=7#x)]
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: ElwinRansom1970 on January 26, 2024, 08:06:53 AM
Strange. I thought Catholics should avoid lawsuits with each other. Carrying your cross and accepting God's will and all.
Well, that's a very Protestant use of private interpretation right there.

🤭
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 26, 2024, 08:27:16 AM
We all have a right to our good name, and one is permitted to take whatever legal recourses are available to preserve or restore one's good name, especially in this case where it impacts the man's livelihood.

I would probably ease up on the amount of punitive damages sought, i.e., not go for a million dollar lawsuit.  To me, the vindication of the legal judgment should suffice to offset the damage at work.  But, if someone lost his job as a result of slander / detraction, then the financial damages might be in order.
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: Matthew on January 26, 2024, 09:13:29 AM
I'd like to see a better Catholic commentary on this particular quote. I am utterly unimpressed by Challoner's quote (see below). Does it matter who is suing who? What about a wronged Catholic suing a NON-Catholic defensively?

We're not supposed to privately interpret scripture, but I need a better Catholic commentary than what Challoner provided. It seems woefully inadequate, dated, and demonstrably false, at least applied to our own times.

Bishop Challoner is simply incorrect, at least in regards to lawsuits in our own time. He lived a long time ago; he could only have been talking about lawsuits in HIS OWN time, which he might have been correct about.

It was simply beyond the powers of his imagination that there would come a time with so much injustice, that PLENTY of lawsuits could be 0% fault on one side, 100% fault on the other. I'm not blaming Challoner though; the modern world is messed up to a degree that our ancestors wouldn't have believed if you told them.

"[7] "A fault": Lawsuits can hardly ever be without a fault, on the one side or the other; and oftentimes on both sides."
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 26, 2024, 11:41:30 AM
"[7] "A fault": Lawsuits can hardly ever be without a fault, on the one side or the other; and oftentimes on both sides."

I don't think he means that they're inherently illicit.  What he's saying is akin to how people remark that in a divorce there's often blame on both sides.  But he says that there's almost always fault on one side OR the other.  Someone is usually in the wrong, but there are times that both are in the wrong.  There's indeed rarely a lawsuit when one side OR the other isn't in the wrong, but there are some very few cases where that's true, or some cases were both are at fault.

I think he's talking more about the causes for or reasons behind the lawsuits rather than the lawsuits themselves.
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: Nadir on January 26, 2024, 08:21:43 PM
Strange. I thought Catholics should avoid lawsuits with each other. Carrying your cross and accepting God's will and all.
The OP says nothing about the religion of the offender or her victim.

Of course he is permitted to defend his good name from another's slander.
Title: Re: Does the church allow the use of legal methods against slander and lies?
Post by: AnthonyPadua on January 26, 2024, 09:47:53 PM
I'd like to see a better Catholic commentary on this particular quote. I am utterly unimpressed by Challoner's quote (see below). Does it matter who is suing who? What about a wronged Catholic suing a NON-Catholic defensively?

We're not supposed to privately interpret scripture, but I need a better Catholic commentary than what Challoner provided. It seems woefully inadequate, dated, and demonstrably false, at least applied to our own times.

Bishop Challoner is simply incorrect, at least in regards to lawsuits in our own time. He lived a long time ago; he could only have been talking about lawsuits in HIS OWN time, which he might have been correct about.

It was simply beyond the powers of his imagination that there would come a time with so much injustice, that PLENTY of lawsuits could be 0% fault on one side, 100% fault on the other. I'm not blaming Challoner though; the modern world is messed up to a degree that our ancestors wouldn't have believed if you told them.

"[7] "A fault": Lawsuits can hardly ever be without a fault, on the one side or the other; and oftentimes on both sides."
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/macevilly3/untitled-32.shtml#_Toc385606089
Quote
5. His recommendation regarding the appointment of those who are of least consideration in the Church to decide their disputes, was intended to cause them shame and confusion, as implying that they had no person of prudence amongst them, no persons sufficiently versed in the business of common life to decide between one brother and another. “Between his brethren,” in the Greek, ἀνὰμέσον τοὑ αδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, between his brother, i.e., between brother and brother.

6. He repeats in this verse what he mentioned with indignant surprise (verse 1). It is clear that both here, and in verse 1, reference is made to the prosecutor or plaintiff, because the defendant was not free to refuse, if cited before a Pagan tribunal. In this verse lawsuits are condemned on account of the persons engaged in them; in the preceding, they are condemned on account of the tribunals before which they were brought; and in the following, on account of the evils intrinsic to them, or, at least, in almost all cases, attendant on, and resulting from them.
7. “Already indeed there is plainly a fault,” &c. The Greek word for “fault,” ηττημα, means, an inferiority, a failing or defect. Hence, some Commentators interpret this verse to mean, that it is an imperfection in them, or a departure from a counsel of perfection, to have suits of law at all among them. The word, however, more probably means, “a fault,” inasmuch as suits at law are always attended with an almost infinite number of evils, with sins against charity and justice: Lest, however, it might be alleged, that lawsuits are necessary to obtain an indemnity for personal outrage and losses, both of character and property, the Apostle says, they should bear with losses of one kind and the other sooner than engage in litigation: “Why do you not rather take wrong?” &c. From this passage, we are by no means to infer, that it is in all cases wrong to have recourse to the legally constituted tribunnals, with a view of seeking reparation for losses either of character or property. We are allowed to recur to them whenever justice or charity does not prevent it; or, whenever the good, resulting from the assertion of our just rights would outweigh the evils resulting from litigation. The precept here given by the Apostle is similar to those laid down in the gospel: “If a man will contend with thee, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.”—(Matt. 5:40). “And of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.”—(Luke 6:30). These precepts of our divine Redeemer according to St. Thomas, are not always to be observed in point of fact, but they are to be always kept in the preparation of mind. Non semper observanda sunt hæc præcepta Domini in executione operæ, sed semper habenda in præparatione animi, viz., as he himself explains it, we should be always prepared to sustain the loss or perform the work here enjoined sooner than offend against fraternal charity. But since suits at law, although not intrinsically bad in themselves, rarely take place without, at least, a violation of charity, and in many instances, of justice also; hence, they are rarely without fault, even in the case of the injured party—for, it is of him the Apostle speaks in this verse.
8. The Apostle, in this verse, addresses the offending party—so far you are from patiently submitting to losses in property, or to personal outrage, that you even offer personal outrage to your neighbour, not excepting your Christian brother, and inflict on him losses of property—the circuмstance of inflicting injury on a Christian brother aggravates the offence. “Do wrong,” αδικεῖτε.
9. “Know you not,” as if he said, I need not tell you, what you must already know, “that the unjust.” The Greek for “unjust,” αδικοι, has the same signification as “do wrong” of the preceding verse. The Apostle points out the punishment that awaits such sinners, “shall not possess,” in Greek, οὐ κληρονομησουσιν, shall not inherit. “The kingdom of God” is called an inheritance, because destined for the children of the promise. The Apostle does not say of those who institute suits at law before Pagan tribunals, that they should be excluded from God’s kingdom; although such a proceeding is “a fault” in them, it is only of those who commit injustice he says so. Hence, he insinuates the difference between mortal and venial sins. “Do not err.” The Apostle employs these words to arrest attention, whenever he is about treating of any important point either of doctrine or morality. From them is clearly seen how old the error of justification through faith without good works has been.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment147.shtml
Quote
Ver. 4-7. Set them to judge, who are the most despised in the Church. Rather make choice of Christians of lesser parts and talents, than have recourse to infidels, who will be scandalized at the injuries and injustice done by Christians to each other. Besides you cannot but have some wise men among you to decide such matters. Wi. — S. Paul does not here mean to tell the Corinthians that they must choose the most despised and the most ignorant, but he wishes to inform them that if there were none but men of this description in the Church, it would still be much more preferable to appoint these judges than to go to law before idolatrous judges. Estius. — It is plainly a fault,[1] weakness in you to run to such heathen judges: you should rather bear, and put up with the injuries done to you. — A fault. Law-suits can hardly ever be without a fault, on one side or the other; and oftentimes on both sides. Ch.


Ver. 8-11. Defraud . . . your brethren. That is, you still make yourselves much more guilty by the injustices done to one another: for the unjust, and all they who are guilty of such crimes as I have mentioned, shall not possess the kingdom of God. And some of you were guilty of part of them, which have been washed off by your conversion, and your baptism, when you were justified. Wi. — And such some of you were. It is probable that this was added by the apostle, to soften his preceding words, lest he might seem to accuse all the Corinthians of each of these sins, and he likewise adds, such indeed you were, but now you are washed, &c. &c. Estius, S. Tho. Aq.