Poland: Atheist who has received extreme unction claims € 21.000 for “immaterial damages”

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | November 29, 2013

I just read in a German newspaper some news that I find incredible, but was not able to ascertain elsewhere. Anyway, the fact is worth reporting, so here we go:

“Immaterial Damages for Extreme Unction

Polish Atheist who was given the sacrament of anointing of the sick files lawsuit and wins – despite having been healed.

Regarding the freedom of conscience, there is a frequent misunderstanding. Usually it is thought to relate to faith and religion. But in fact, the freedom of conscience protects not only faith, but also unbelief – or at least the unbelievers. That was now confirmed by the Supreme Court in Poland.

As the Catholic News Agency KNA reports, a former coma patient had sued a hospital in Szczecin. After his apparently unexpected recovery Jerzy R. learned from the medical records that, while he was in coma, a priest had provided him the sacrament of the sick.

In more common language, this act is widely known as “extreme unction”, because the priest is usually called at the last minute, often too late, to the terminally ill. However, the Catholic Church in recent times has re-interpreted the anointing to be a sacrament of life. The Second Vatican Council has clearly shifted the focus to the healing aspect, which in this case means not only cure from bodily disease, but also the liberation from sin. “The prayer of faith will save the sick”, one reads in the New Testament.

In strongly Catholic Poland it is common practice that, when a patient is in a critical condition, the hospital staff calls a priest to give him the anointing of the sick – often even without asking or informing his family. This automatism now proved fatal: Jerzy R. is an atheist. Not only the sacrament should never have been administered to him but the man, upon unexpectedly having recovered from his illness, turns out to be ungrateful: he went to court, complaining that his freedom of conscience had been disrespected. The Supreme Court has now upheld his claim.
So far, so good. Somewhat absurd, however, is the idea that the patient, who has been cured, is now claiming compensation from the hospital under the title of “immaterial damages”. While it is not clear what damage exactly he has suffered, Jerzy R. is demanding the payment of 21.000 Euro. It must now decide a lower court after the landmark judgment. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, a lower court must now determine the amount of the compensation”.

Somehow, this case is quintessential for what is going on in our society: we are reaching new levels of idiocy that were unknown to previous generations. What we have here is, on the one hand, the perfect prototype of a militant atheist (or, as they nowadays prefer to call themselves, a “humanist” or “secularist”): a man who squeamishly asserts his status as a “victim” whose rights have been trampled upon, and who at the same time is aggressive  and quarrelsome enough to spend his and other people’s time and resources for a lawsuit on such a matter. What a cantankerous, obnoxious, ridiculous, fussy, stingy, petty-minded, lamentable pain in the neck this man must be! I feel sorry for the guy, but I really would not want to be like him.

On the other hand, and this is even worse, we have judges who are ready to hear such cases, and to take them seriously, rather than laughing the man out of court and asking him to pay a fine for having filed what obviously is a vexatious lawsuit. (And obviously, this is like an epidemic in European law courts. Just think of the ECtHR’s notorious judgment in the case of Lautsi vs. Italy.)

In my humble opinion, this lawsuit is the best proof that so-called “secularists” don’t take their own stated beliefs seriously. If they did, then the rite of the anointing of the sick would simply be of no meaning of them: just a few words, muttered sotto voce, and maybe the sign of the cross – not more. In the case at hand, the plaintiff, being in a coma, was probably not even able to notice that someone was praying at his bedside. So, what damage does he believe to have suffered? Did he feel pain? Was his (unexpected) healing delayed? Or was his self-esteem hurt by the fact that someone charitably prayed for him when he seemed to need it?

If “secularists” really were as tolerant as they all claim to be, then they would accept another person’s prayers, even if they believe them to be completely ridiculous and ineffective, as an act of charity. I am myself neither a Muslim nor a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, but if any follower of those different religious prays for me while I’m sick, I’d be simply grateful and take it as a sign of sympathy. What an idiot must one be to make a such a fuss about this!

The lesson to be learned is about the intrinsic nature of modern “secularism”: it is idiocy and fuss-making, combined with a strong dose of meanness. Obviously, the purpose is not to obtain compensation for any “damages”, but to evict, by whatever means seem available, all expressions of religion from the public sphere.
In other words, the man is not a “victim”. He is a hater.

Luckily for him, God has given him a grace period in which he still can convert. I’ll pray for him. And I ask all who read this to do the same. That’s really the best we can do for this poor soul. (But make sure that the European Humanist Federation does not find out…!)

 

N.B.: Here is a link to a video showing the rite of extreme unction, administered to a life-long non-believer, which is immediately followed by his conversion. A beautiful, deeply touching scene, which is taken from the successful BBC series “Brideshead Revisited”, based upon the homonymous movel by Evelyn Waugh. (Watch it and judge for yourself whether it warrants any compensation claims…)

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter