Lawsuits

Should Catholics Go To Court?

We have been asked to comment on I Corinthians, chapter 6 in regard to going to law.

Saint John Chrysostom: "For in the first place," says he, "if one must go to law it were wrong to do so before the unrighteous. But you ought not to go to law at all.''

And because it would have been intolerable to be told at once not to go to law, he did not immediately add this, but only changed the judges, bringing the party engaged in the trial from without into the Church. Saint John Chrysostom.

The general principle is that we should not take people to court. Going to court or to law is an exception not the rule. I Corinthians 6:7 Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have law suits one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

The Vulgates refers us to Matthew 5:39 to which We have added 40 and 41: But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two. And I Thessalonians 5:15: See that none render evil for evil to any man: but ever follow that which is good towards each other and towards all men. And I Peter 3:9: Not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.

I Corinthians 6:1: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust: and not before the saints? Saint John Chrysostom: Now wherefore did he bring in by the way that discourse about covetousness and about the duty of not going to law without the Church? There are exceptions when we should go to law, but we should always go to law before an Eccelsiatical Court rather than a civil court. In the Code of Canon Law there is a whole section on Ecclesiastical Trials, which includes not just ecclesiastical matters, but also civil matters. If there is a dispute among Catholics it should be taken to Ecclesiastical court rather than to a civil court in a non-Catholic country.

Let us read what Saint Thomas Aquinas says (II-II Q19 A10): On the contrary, Those who are in authority can pronounce judgment on those over whom they are placed. But unbelievers cannot pronounce judgment on the faithful, for the Apostles says: (I Corinthians 6:1): “Dare any of you, have a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust,” i.e. unbelievers, “and not before the saints?” Therefore it seems that unbelievers cannot have authority over the faithful.

I answer that, That this question may be considered in two ways. First, we may speak of dominion or authority of unbelievers over the faithful as of a things to be established for the time. This ought by no means to be allowed, since it would provoke scandal and endanger the faith, for subjects are easily influenced by their superiors to comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of great virtue: moreover unbelievers hold the faith in contempt, if they see the faithful fall away. Hence the Apostle forbade the faithful to go to law before an unbelieving judge. And so the Church altogether forbids unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have authority over them in any capacity whatever.

Secondly, we may speak of dominion or authority, as already in force: and here we must observe that dominion and authority are institutions of human law, while the distinction between the faithful and unbelievers arises from the Divine law. Now the Divine law which is the law of grace, does not do away with human law which is the law of natural reason. Wherefore the distinction between faithful and unbelievers, considered in itself, does not do away with dominion and authority of unbelievers over the faithful.

Nevertheless this right of dominion or authority can be justly done away with by the sentence or ordination of the Church who has the authority of God: since unbelievers in virtue of their unbelief deserve to forfeit their power over ht faithful who are converted into the children of God.

Pope Paul IV declared that schismatics, heretics and apostates lose their authority by the very fact of their schism, heresy or apostasy without any need of declaration. This includes those possessing civil authority. Pope Saint Pius V invoked this principles in Regnans in Excelsis, when he released English Catholic from obedience to the heresiarch Queen Elizabeth I.

From Fraternal Correction and Detraction

We have recommended all reread this important document, for Jesus tells us how to proceed in these matters, which include not just religious matters, but also civil matters. http://www.VaticanInExile.com/Encyclicals/Fraternal Correction.html

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee: take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church: let him be to thee as the heathen and publican., Matthew 18:15-17

The Douay Rheims footnotes are copious for these three verses, so let us explore these and meditate on this matter carefully. We shall also consider the writings of the Fathers on this most important subject.

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother., Matthew 18:15

Leviticus 19:17: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him.

Ecclesiasticus 19:13-18: Reprove a friend, lest he may not have understood, and say: I did it not. Or if he did it, that he may do it no more. Reprove thy neighbor, for it may be he hath not said it: and if he hath said it, that he may not say it again. Admonish thy friend: for there is often a fault committed. And believe not every word. There is one that slippeth with the tongue, but not from his heart. For who is there that hath not offended with his tongue? Admonish thy neighbor before thou threaten him. And give place to the fear of the Most High: for the fear of God is all wisdom.

James 5:19-20: My brethren, if any of you err from the truth and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way shall save his soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins.

Saint Augustine: Our Lord admonishes us not to overlook one another’s faults, yet not so much as seeking for matter of blame, but watching what you may amend. For our rebuke should be in love, not eager to wound, but anxious to amend. If you pass it by, you are become worse than he. He by doing you a wrong hath done himself a great hurt; you slight your brother’s wound, and are more to blame by silence than he for his ill words to you.

Saint Isidore: But if any one spares reproof of evil doers, because he seeks a fitter occasion, or fears to make them worse, or that they may be an impediment to the good and pious living of other weak ones, or may grieve them, or turn them from the faith; herein there is seen no considerations of covetousness, but the prudence of charity.

Saint John Chrysostom: And he says not, Accuse him, nor, Chide with him, not, demand redress, but, “Tell him his fault”; that is, remind him of his sin, tell him what things you have suffered from him. … We are to tell his fault to the man himself who did it, and not to another, because the party takes it with the more patience from him, and above all when they are together alone. For when he who had a right to demand reparation, shews rather a carefulness to heal the sore, this has great power to propitiate.

Saint Jerome: Thy brother is to be reproved in private, lest if once he has lost a sense a shame, he should continue in sin.

And if he will not hear thee: take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand., Matthew 18:16

Deuteronomy 19:15: One witness shall not rise up against any man, whatsoever the sin or wickedness be. But in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.

John 8:17: And in your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true.

II Corinthians 13:1: Behold, this is the third time I am coming to you: In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand.

Hebrews 10:28: A man making void the law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church: let him be to thee as the heathen and publican., Matthew 18:17

I Corinthians 5:9: I wrote to you an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.

II Thessalonians 3:14-15: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Saint John Chrysostom: That is, to those that are over the Church.

Gloss: Or, tell it to the whole Church, that his infamy may be the greater. After all these things follows excommunication, which ought to be inflicted by the mouth of the Church, that is, by the Priest, and when he excommunicates, the whole Church works with him; as it follows: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”

Note well that there are three steps:

Between you and your brother alone,

With two witnesses

And then tell the Church, that is appeal to the Church for a judgment, which can include

excommunication of the malefactor.

Since excommunication is possible the matter must be a mortal sin to go through this process. Only offenses which are external, grave, consummated or complete, and combined with obstinacy, are published with censures. (Canon 2241, paragraph 1)

Brotherly Love

Saint John Chrysostom concludes: He that is pious towards men, is still more pious towards God. This constant bickering has no place among Catholics. As Catholics we should be united not only by spiritual bonds of the profession of the same Faith, but also we must love one another with a true love in all areas. Bear ye one another's burdens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2) Much more needs to be said on this, but the reason this question has been asked needs to be addressed now; true love of neighbor later, although We recommend all look into this on their own now.

Traditionalist Legal Battles

Several of us are dealing with Traditionalists trying to instruct them in the truth. Some have threatened lawsuits, because we are presenting the truth publicly in order to save souls. In fact Traditionalism has seen lawsuits throughout its history, mainly when a Traditionalist organization splits and there is property involved. Ironically all Traditionalists appeal to secular authorities, including those who claim the Roman usurpers as their pope.

Now to threaten to sue in a secular non-Catholic court over a spiritual matter is incomprehensible. How can a non-Catholics judge properly in a spiritual matter? Saint Thomas says: moreover unbelievers hold the faith in contempt, And yet, we are going to ask an unbeliever to make a decision in a spiritual matter. These matters come under the jurisdiction of the Church exclusively. Secular courts, even in a Catholic country have no jurisdiction over these matters. The Church has the inherent and exclusive right to judge: 1. cases which relate to spiritual matters, or to temporal matters annexed to spiritual matters (Canon 1553). To even consider taking these matters to another forum demonstrates a lack of Catholicity.

In view of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful in the whole world may appeal his case to the Holy See-whether the case be civil or criminal and at any stage whatsoever of the procedure-or may take it there in the first place. (Canon 1569) From October 9, 1958 until July 16, 1990 there was no Pope and thus no forum before which to take these matters. This does permit us to point out dangerous notorious heretics to Catholics in order to warn them of the dangers, but nothing beyond this.

From Saint John Chrysostom, commenting on Hebrews 13:17: How then does Paul say, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves"? Having said above, "whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation" (c. ver. 7), he then said, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves."

What then (you say), when he is wicked should we obey?

Wicked? In what sense? If indeed in regard to Faith, flee and avoid him; not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from Heaven; but if in regard to life, be not over-curious. And this instance I do not allege from my own mind, but from the Divine Scripture. For hear Christ saying, "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat." (Matt. xxiii. 2.) Having previously spoken many fearful things concerning them, He then says, "They sit on Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they tell you observe, do; but do not ye after their works." (Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.) They have (He means) the dignity of office, but are of unclean life. Do thou however attend, not to their life, but to their words. For as regards their characters, no one would be harmed [thereby]. How is this? Both because their characters are manifest to all, and also because though he were ten thousand times as wicked he will never teach what is wicked. But as respects Faith, [the evil] is not manifest to all, and the wicked [ruler] will not shrink from teaching it.

Moreover, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt. vii. 1) concerns life, not faith: surely what follows makes this plain. For "why" (He says) "beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matt. vii. 3.)

"All things therefore" (He says) "which they bid you observe, do ye" (now to "do" belongs to works not to Faith) "but do not ye after their works." Seest thou that [the discourse] is not concerning doctrines, but concerning life and works?

If we judge from their actions that a man, claiming spiritual authority is a heretic, then we must flee him, since he has resigned that authority. Before 1990 we all had to make these judgments for the good of our souls. And yet, the final judgment remains with the Church and in the case of schism, heresy and apostasy, the Roman Pontiff. The need for these judgments indicates the need for the Roman Pontiff.

Every person can be sued before the local Ordinary of the territory in which he has domicile or quasi-domicile. The Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile has jurisdiction over his subject, even though the latter is absent from the diocese. (Canon 1561)

Traditionalists will reply, but we have no Local Ordinaries. Their next statement is that either we have no pope or that the pope has given up his rights as pope due to heresy, while retaining some claim to the papacy. This lack of authority is a major problem, which Traditionalists refuse to solve. Instead they set up their sacramental system with their sacramental priests and bishops, while ignoring the necessity of jurisdiction.

And let us apply this to the Siri proposition. As Catholics all of us have the right to appeal to the Roman Pontiff, therefore we have a right to have a visible Roman Pontiff to appeal to. Further, schismatics, heretics and apostates have the right to appeal to the Roman Pontiff to effect their reconciliation with the Church. Through Canon 2314, Local Ordinaries can reconcile these with the Church and permit them to return as laymen. Those wishing to return to the clerical state must appeal to the Roman Pontiff, and this gives them an inherent right to have a Roman Pontiff. As a secret pope, Siri denied us our Divine law rights. Tran Van Khoat, who now claims to have certainty that Siri was Pope Gregory XVII, also denied Us our rights in both 1988 and 1989, when We asked for certainty on Siri. The laity has the right to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rule of ecclesiastical discipline. (Canon 682) Of course, the proper interpretation of Canon Law leaves Tran Van Khoat a layman, since he was ordained by a non-Catholic Bishop.

All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic automatically incur suspensions a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such men, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains dispensation from the prohibition. (Canon 2372) This dispensation is likewise reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Will Tran Van Khoat claim a secret reconciliation from his secret pope. This does not matter, since he did not claim Siri was Pope from the day he allegedly found out, but denied it in word and deed before many witnesses, until he changed his story. Therefore we must presume his first actions, being closest in time to his meeting with Siri are the truth.

How Should We Act Towards Non-Catholics?

Those of us who are learned in the Faith under the direction and guidance of the Roman Pontiff are seeking to bring people to the Divine and Catholic Faith. To achieve this we are discussing matters with people who we believe are only material heretics, part of the deceived elect spoken of by Jesus Christ.

And We would like to appeal to all non-Catholics. First of all we do believe you are outside of the Church. To believe otherwise would be inconsistent, as inconsistent as to believe that Rome has become the Seat of Antichrist but believe that the Mass is still available. The Fathers of the Church unanimously agree that at the time of Antichrist the Mass will cease entirely. However, we believe that you like us were deceived by false prophets and false christs as Jesus warned us. It is our desire to bring you the truths of the Divine and Catholic Faith and apply them to this situation. We certainly will not condemn you for being deceived; we all were at one time or another. We wish only to bring all into the unity of the profession of the Divine and Catholic Faith under the Roman Pontiff. We have sacrificed our time, our lives and our reputations in order to come under the Roman Pontiff. We have become fools for Christ.