Usury

[Aloysius]

sorry if that sounded snippy, track. I understand if that post got burried in all the LittleLes argument. but one more time: your father as a loan officer does nothing wrong since he is really not the one who decides that there must be interest rates. If he owned a bank, it would be a different story. But your father does nothing wrong for the same reason it is not wrong to BORROW from a usurer, because the bank is already set to be in the business of usury and your father and any borrower would just be working through it with good aims in mind.

[track2004]

That doesnt seem right... if usury is wrong then... why isnt it just flat wrong? you seem to be saying that if they have good aims or if the lending is for good then its ok... but if we were to apply that standard to everything else the church declares a sin then stem-cell research would be ok too... right. its for a good purpose, it helps people. and the other thing is... dont banks pay out intrest on money they hold to their customers... does this count? Frankly this argument seems kinda silly... if there wasnt intrest there wouldnt be banks, and without banks things would smell of elderberries. I dont wanna have to carry around 20lbs of precious metals just to go fill my gas tank.

[Aloysius]

you've completely missed the point. have you read through my posts? I know they're long but there's a lot of nuances to explain out here. interest on unproductive ventures is usury. however, when money is actually producing profit by being used in productive ventures, both a lender and a borrower can profit from it.

what I'm saying is that it is wrong to charge money at usury based on the traditional teaching of the Church, but as Aquinas notes it is not wrong for the person on the other end to use someone already determined to be a usurer. The sin is in taking the money from the person that isn't really morally due to you. So basically by using credit cards and loans at interest rates you are allowing someone to misuse you because you by charging you interest rates because you can take it. The sin resides in the person who decides to take arbitrary interest rates.

if a man was going to steal bread from you and you had absolutely no way of stopping him but did have an oppurtunity to see to it that the bread goes to someone who needs it, you would do so correct? you are in no way responsible for the stealing of the bread.

It is not usurious to share in the profit of a productive venture. This can even be planned out alongside a loan of unproductive nature to keep incentive for the lender to do business for the borrower. did you read my last quote from the Fifth Lateran Council lauding certain types of lending. Of course there can be banks without arbitrary interest rates charging for the use of money (which is, as Aristotle, Aquinas and Belloc note, money that does not necessarily exist). The Fifth Lateran Council commends certain banking models.

Your arguments are unreasonable here. I never said there shouldn't be banks or investments or loans. It's just that they would all be centered around the actual production of profit in such a way that solid property can be more easily owned rather than rented. The modern condition of society forces us to work within usurious systems sometimes to eventually acheive that. Again, we are using the usurers. the usurers are doing the bad thing TO US, we may allow them to do the bad thing to us. And since the banks really decide to charge usury, even a loan officer is not the one committing the sin of usury.

[LittleLes]

Aloyisius,

I'm afraid you are avoiding the issue by introducing aspects that are clearly beside the point. And this makes for very long posts on your part . Such as various conditions which now - not originally - make a loan at interest acceptable.

The "traditional" position on charging interest (usury) remained unchanged up until about 1750. It is summed up in Aquinas.

"I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."

But then "interest" was given a new name , ie "parallel titles," to rationalize the change in Catholic teaching.

It is interesting that both the original prohibition against charging ANY interest under ANY conditions and the Church's moral justification of slavery were both claimed to be based on scripture and natural law .

Both teaching have changed. Usury about 1750 and slavery about 1900.

[Laudate_Dominum]

sound the alarm!! the seat must be vacant! it's the babylonian captivity of the Church! that's it! I'm going to switzerland!

hearing the old usury argument just makes me think, "lame".
and I recall reading a condemnation of slavery from the 1700's. Also there are forms of slavery (serfdom really) that are fine. the 1700's and up things were talking about the slave trade stuff which is obviously evil.

and what do you think of using prisoners for unpaid (or virtually unpaid) labour? This is becoming more popular in our country. How is this not slavery? And on what grounds is it not morally acceptable?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:14 AM']sound the alarm!! the seat must be vacant! it's the babylonian captivity of the Church!  that's it! I'm going to switzerland!

hearing the old usury argument just makes me think, "lame".
and I recall reading a condemnation of slavery from the 1700's. Also there are forms of slavery (serfdom really) that are fine. the 1700's and up things were talking about the slave trade stuff which is obviously evil.

and what do you think of using prisoners for unpaid (or virtually unpaid) labour? This is becoming more popular in our country. How is this not slavery? And on what grounds is it not morally acceptable?
[right][snapback]659324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The slavery refered to in the bible and church teaching is "chattel" slavery. It was the type practiced in ancient Rome and in the American South. The slave and all his offspring remain the property of the owner and are inherited.

This isn't a sports player contract, nor is it indentured servitude. And prison labor isn't hereditary. To get around the Church's approval of slavery, some apologists like to claim such comparisons.

Compare and contrast:

(1)In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

(2) But than in 1985 we have this from #2414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity ... "

Notice the reversal of teaching?

[Aloysius]

This thread is not about slavery. I emplore all parties to ignore all LittleLes points and posts that do not deal specifically with usury. If you need help ignoring such posts: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=usercp&CODE=ignore&uid=2442"]click here[/url]

Back to usury, you continue to ignore the two quotes I presented from the Tenth Session of the Fifth Lateran Council, one of which clearly defines usury as being interest charged on unproductive loans where there is no risk involved from the lender, and the other which praises certain types of lending systems in which the lender has a profit-incentive of lending.

The Tenth Session of the Fifth Lateran Council states:
[quote]Since, therefore, this whole question appears to concern the peace and tranquillity of the whole christian state, we declare and define, with the approval of the sacred council, that the above-mentioned credit organisations, established by states and hitherto approved and confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see, do not introduce any kind of evil or provide any incentive to sin if they receive, in addition to the capital, a moderate sum for their expenses and by way of compensation, provided it is intended exclusively to defray the expenses of those employed and of other things pertaining to the upkeep of the organisations, and provided that no profit is made therefrom.  They ought not, indeed, to be condemned in any way.  Rather, sucha  type of lending is meritorious and should be praised and approved.  It certainly should not be considered as usurious; it is lawful to preach the piety and mercy of such organisations to the people, included the indulgences granted for this purpose by the holy apostolic see; and in the future, with the approval of the apostolic see, other similar credit organisations can be established.  It would, however, be much more perfect and more holy if such credit organisations were completely gratuitous: that is, if those establishing them provided definiitive sums with which would be paid, if not the total expenses, then at least half the wages of those employed by the organisations, with the result that the debt of the poor would be lightened thereby.  We therefore decree that Christ's faithful ought to be prompted, by a grant of substantial indulgences, to give aid to the poor by provided the sums of which we have spoken, in order ot meet the costs of the organisations.[/quote]

[quote]"For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which [b]produces nothing[/b] is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit [b]without any work, any expense or any risk[/b]."[/quote] (emphasis mine)

You also ignore my explanation of parallel titles as side deals and investments that give the lender incentive to continue to do business with the borrower without interest as well as the quote from that encyclical which warns against interprettng parallel titles the way you think they should be interpretted
Have you read the entire encyclical Vix pervenit? I sincerely doubt it.

Vix pervenit says:
[quote]V. But you must diligently consider this, that some will falsely and rashly persuade themselves-and such people can be found anywhere-that together with loan contracts there are other legitimate titles or, excepting loan contracts, they might convince themselves that other just contracts exist, for which it is permissible to receive a moderate amount of interest. Should any one think like this, he will oppose not only the judgment of the Catholic Church on usury, but also common human sense and natural reason. Everyone knows that man is obliged in many instances to help his fellows with a simple, plain loan. Christ Himself teaches this: "Do not refuse to lend to him who asks you." In many circumstances, no other true and just contract may be possible except for a loan. Whoever therefore wishes to follow his conscience must first diligently inquire if, along with the loan, another category exists by means of which the gain he seeks may be lawfully attained.[/quote]

There, Vix pervenit clearly warns against attempting to use this parallel titles idea to merely mask and rename interest.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 11:03 AM']RESPONSE:
[color=red][edit:nothing in this post remotely mentioned the topic at hand- usury][/color]
[right][snapback]659477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[LittleLes]

Aloyious posted:

RESPONSE:
[edit:nothing in this post remotely mentioned the topic at hand- usury]


Les RESPONDS:

My reply was to Laudate Dominium's post dealing with slavery. Read above.

[Aloysius]

Laudate was (foolishly) responding to your slight mention of slavery. But I refuse to engage that post on slavery, and I implore everyone else here not to engage that post on slavery. This thread exists for the sole purpose of talking about usury.

let LittleLes's comment:
[quote]Both teaching have changed. Usury about 1750 and slavery about 1900[/quote]
and Laudate's comment:
[quote]and I recall reading a condemnation of slavery from the 1700's. Also there are forms of slavery (serfdom really) that are fine. the 1700's and up things were talking about the slave trade stuff which is obviously evil.

and what do you think of using prisoners for unpaid (or virtually unpaid) labour? This is becoming more popular in our country. How is this not slavery? And on what grounds is it not morally acceptable?[/quote]

and LittleLes's long posted reply to that be all [b][color=red]STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD[/color][/b]. Any further mention of slavery is to be stricken from the record.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 12:55 PM']This thread is not about slavery.  I emplore all parties to ignore all LittleLes points and posts that do not deal specifically with usury.  If you need help ignoring such posts: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=usercp&CODE=ignore&uid=2442"]click here[/url]

Back to usury, you continue to ignore the two quotes I presented from the Tenth Session of the Fifth Lateran Council, one of which clearly defines usury as being interest charged on unproductive loans where there is no risk involved from the lender, and the other which praises certain types of lending systems in which the lender has a profit-incentive of lending.

The Tenth Session of the Fifth Lateran Council states:
(emphasis mine)

You also ignore my explanation of parallel titles as side deals and investments that give the lender incentive to continue to do business with the borrower without interest as well as the quote from that encyclical which warns against interprettng parallel titles the way you think they should be interpretted
Have you read the entire encyclical Vix pervenit?  I sincerely doubt it.

Vix pervenit says:
There, Vix pervenit clearly warns against attempting to use this parallel titles idea to merely mask and rename interest.
[right][snapback]659726[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Rather than rerunning the same errors while avoiding the simple central issue itself (unless this is your intent), lets simplify by answering two basic questions.

(1) Do you disagree that the Church's FORMER teaching prohibited charging ANY interest of ANY loans? As stated by Aquinas:

"I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."

(2) Does the Church NOW forbid charging ANY interest on ANY loans?

[Aloysius]

(1)The Church previously condemned charging interest on unproductive loans where there was no work or risk on the part of the lender (see definition by Lateran V). I agree with this.

The reason and wisdom behind this becomes quite clear, that with the pandora's box open on usury it is practically impossible to fully own any private property. We borrow and mortgage and pay and pay and pay on interest to no end until the day we sell that house or we die.

(2) The decisions of the Lateran Councils (moral decisions, not the disciplinary action taken against usurers) and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium still hold full force upon Catholics today. Pope John Paul II opposed usury as well.

The Traditional Teaching stands.

Now, as Aquinas notes, it is lawful to borrow at interest but it is not lawful to charge interest.

It is lawful for a lender to share in the profit produced created by his loan.
It is lawful for a lender to ask for fees on a loan in order to pay his employees and keep his bank operational (Lateran V says that, Vix pervenit refers to those as well as other side deals and investments as parallel titles)