Why doesn't the Church sue?


[quote=RichSpidizzy]In a way, the Church “loses customers” when Catholics believe the anti-Catholic statements that they hear.

That sounds far too vague to be able to provide a legal standard of harm. Besides, doesn’t that put the Catholic Church one step closer to being legally liable every time a person converts from another religion? I don’t think that’s the direction that we ought to be headed.

exactly my point… Judaism has the Anti-Defamation League, why doesn’t the Church have a similar group?

We do have the Catholic League. They kind of play the role for Catholics that the ADL plays for Jews.


[quote=atsheeran]We do have the Catholic League. They kind of play the role for Catholics that the ADL plays for Jews.

Cool! never knew about them… I’ll have to check them out, thanks!


To sue for libel or slander, what one must first do is prove that the statement made is false. The Courts have repeatedly held that they will not arbitrate between one theological position and another.

This is not a bad position. Europe has had countries that have had a state religion - or a state approved religion - e.g. Spain, with Catholicism, and Enland with the Church of Henry VIII. anyone familiar with the difficulties that arise when the Church (whichever one) starts to exert its influence in the realm of laws and/or politics to the extent that they have in Europe can understand the wisdom of the Courts in the US. Secularism will arise whether the State has a recognized Church or not (see, e.g. the current conditions in Spain). In the US, the dispute is between any Church and secularism, as to whether or not the Church has a legitimate voice in any event.

The next issue is proving damages. Since the Church’s position is that it is out to gain souls, not bodies, and since the Church’s position is that all must enter Heaven through Christ, but how that works is between God and the individual, and not determined soley on actual membership (sorry, that is a short-hand description of a sticky issue), it would be hard to prove that any damage occured, let alone the amount.

As to the Da Vinci Code, it was published as fiction and is protected speech. Jack Chick falls under the area of theological disputes, and even if it can be shown that he does not correctly state our teaching, it would be held that it is still a dispute over theology, and the Courts will not determine the correctness or lack thereof of theological positions. Again, how does one show damages, even if it is shown that Chick lied?


I read about half of the previous posts and then hit the reply button.
So, maybe this is repetitious.

Hey, that door swings both ways. If the CC sued Pat Robertson or Chick publications, then we might get a reverse suit.

What a way to tie up the courts with metaphysical debates.

…which may boil down to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.


…oh yeah, and what would an impartial jury look like?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.