A Change In Roman Catholic Doctrine

[Colin]

Does Roman Catholic Doctrine Change ?

This is an example where it clearly has .

( The main source for what follows is " A Catholic Dictionary "
by W.Addis and T.Arnold . Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur , Westminster , 2nd Oct. 1950 )
Any good encyclopaedia or internet websites contain the same material .

Our word "usury" comes from the Latin "usura" , meaning "interest" .

The Church Fathers are unanimous in regarding all interest , large or small , as usury ,and therefore as a form of robbery . For example Jerome and Epiphanius define usury as taking interest , and Lactantius said that it is unjust to take more than one gave .

Following the O.T. teaching , e.g. Lev. 25:35-37 , down to modern times Roman Catholic Church doctrine was that money was intended to be used in exchange for something of equal value and not to increase at interest . The doctrine was that the O.T. prohibition bound Christians .

Tertullian , Cyprian , Ambrose , Basil , Jerome , Chrysostom , Augustine , and Theodoret all in their condemnation of interest appeal to the O.T.

Speaking of usury in all its forms , Pope Leo 1 said that such a thing is lamentable in the case of any Christian .
The Second Lateran Council ( 1139 ) condemns usurers , whatever the amount of interest , to excommunication and deprives them of Christian burial .
Pope Clement V , at the Council of Vienne ( 1311-1312 ) , declares it heresy to maintain that usury , the taking of interest , is no sin .

From Thomas Aquinas it is plain that all taking of interest was still regarded as usury .
The Council of Trent adopted Aquinas' view , calling it a sin of equal gravity to that of homicide .

So there we are . These are my words by the way . The teaching of the Catholic Church today on usury , the lending money at interest , is totally different from what it was . Commerce , Industry , social progress have changed. With the change in economics has come a change in Church doctrine .

So does Roman Catholic doctrine change ? Most clearly it has in this case .

 

[Standing Up]

What's ironic is that supposedly it was Calvin who redefined usury from NO interest to EXCESSIVE interest.

Irony sharpening irony.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In today's world I see usury as a sin. Banks charging upto 25% interest. Home mortgages that pay three times the amount financed. That to me is usury.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Does Roman Catholic Doctrine Change ?

I do not think so but am willing to look into it further. I am subscribing.

 

[ebia]

.

 

[Assyrian]

"The smell of banks is always pleasing, don't you think?" said Vetinari. "A mix of polish, ink, and wealth."
"And ursery," said Moist.
"The would be cruelty to bears. You mean usury, I suspect," said Vetinari.
Terry Pratchett

 

[Standing Up]

In today's world I see usury as a sin. Banks charging upto 25% interest. Home mortgages that pay three times the amount financed. That to me is usury.

The 'old way' of looking at usury was a charge of any amount of interest, not something considered "excessive". The sin was to charge any amount.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The 'old way' of looking at usury was a charge of any amount of interest, not something considered "excessive". The sin was to charge any amount.

That I understand. But I am concerned if this is not too much of a legalistic view? Catholicism takes what Christ gave and keeps those truths in line with improving technologies and sciences and governments. The CCC still addresses usury and tasks Catholics to provide for the people. However, it may not always be the same legalities because society changes. So it may be that the effects of charging a fee is what is a sin and thus usury.

 

[Colin]

I first became aware of the doctrine on usury in the 1960s .
An English Jesuit Archbishop used the fact that the Catholic Church's doctrine on the matter had changed to question whether other doctrines could not change as circumstances changed .

It's important to remember that Church doctrine was that usury , meaning any form of interest making , was sinful , and not to get confused with the modern concept of usury which relates to excessive interest . If the doctrine had related to the latter there would be no problem .

 

[Dark_Lite]

Does Roman Catholic Doctrine Change ?

This is an example where it clearly has .

( The main source for what follows is " A Catholic Dictionary "
by W.Addis and T.Arnold . Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur , Westminster , 2nd Oct. 1950 )
Any good encyclopaedia or internet websites contain the same material .

Our word "usury" comes from the Latin "usura" , meaning "interest" .

The Church Fathers are unanimous in regarding all interest , large or small , as usury ,and therefore as a form of robbery . For example Jerome and Epiphanius define usury as taking interest , and Lactantius said that it is unjust to take more than one gave .

Following the O.T. teaching , e.g. Lev. 25:35-37 , down to modern times Roman Catholic Church doctrine was that money was intended to be used in exchange for something of equal value and not to increase at interest . The doctrine was that the O.T. prohibition bound Christians .

Tertullian , Cyprian , Ambrose , Basil , Jerome , Chrysostom , Augustine , and Theodoret all in their condemnation of interest appeal to the O.T.

Speaking of usury in all its forms , Pope Leo 1 said that such a thing is lamentable in the case of any Christian .
The Second Lateran Council ( 1139 ) condemns usurers , whatever the amount of interest , to excommunication and deprives them of Christian burial .
Pope Clement V , at the Council of Vienne ( 1311-1312 ) , declares it heresy to maintain that usury , the taking of interest , is no sin .

From Thomas Aquinas it is plain that all taking of interest was still regarded as usury .
The Council of Trent adopted Aquinas' view , calling it a sin of equal gravity to that of homicide .

So there we are . These are my words by the way . The teaching of the Catholic Church today on usury , the lending money at interest , is totally different from what it was . Commerce , Industry , social progress have changed. With the change in economics has come a change in Church doctrine .

So does Roman Catholic doctrine change ? Most clearly it has in this case .

I tend to prefer primary sources rather than things without citations. What was the bishop who gave the imprimatur like?

You must also remember that the Catholic Church also recognizes a certain amount of relativism in morals, albeit not much. This is something that would probably fall under that relativism.

I would also prefer an examination of where this changed, rather than just "Trent ------> modern day!"

 

[Standing Up]

Nicea---

Canon XVII.
Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, “He hath not given his money upon http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html?highlight=usury,council#highlightusury,” and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre’s sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.
If anyone shall receive usury or 150 per cent, he shall be cast forth and deposed, according to this decree of the Church.
Van Espen.
Although the canon expresses only these two species of usury, if we bear in mind the grounds on which the prohibition was made, it will be manifest that every kind of usury is forbidden to clerics and under any circumstances, and therefore the translation of this canon sent by the Orientals to the Sixth Council of Carthage is in no respect alien to the true intent of the canon; for in this version no mention is made of any particular kind of usury, but generally the penalty is assigned to any clerics who “shall be found after this decree taking usury” or thinking out any other scheme for the sake of filthy lucre.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, in the first part of the Decretum, in Dionysius’s version. Dist. xlvii, c. ii, and again in Isidore’s version in Pars II, Causa xiv. Quæs. iv., c. viii.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html


Excursus on http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxvi.html?highlight=usury,council#highlightUsury.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxvi.html

 

[Colin]

I tend to prefer primary sources rather than things without citations. What was the bishop who gave the imprimatur like?

You must also remember that the Catholic Church also recognizes a certain amount of relativism in morals, albeit not much. This is something that would probably fall under that relativism.

I would also prefer an examination of where this changed, rather than just "Trent ------> modern day!"

The imprimatur was given by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster , Cardinal Griffin .

 

[Dark_Lite]

Nicea---

Canon XVII.
Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, “He hath not given his money upon http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html?highlight=usury,council#highlightusury,” and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre’s sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.
If anyone shall receive usury or 150 per cent, he shall be cast forth and deposed, according to this decree of the Church.
Van Espen.
Although the canon expresses only these two species of usury, if we bear in mind the grounds on which the prohibition was made, it will be manifest that every kind of usury is forbidden to clerics and under any circumstances, and therefore the translation of this canon sent by the Orientals to the Sixth Council of Carthage is in no respect alien to the true intent of the canon; for in this version no mention is made of any particular kind of usury, but generally the penalty is assigned to any clerics who “shall be found after this decree taking usury” or thinking out any other scheme for the sake of filthy lucre.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, in the first part of the Decretum, in Dionysius’s version. Dist. xlvii, c. ii, and again in Isidore’s version in Pars II, Causa xiv. Quæs. iv., c. viii.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html


Excursus on http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxvi.html?highlight=usury,council#highlightUsury.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxvi.html

So, usury by clerics...

I don't think most banks are run by clerics.

 

[Assyrian]

no, clerks.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

no, clerks.

I think you mean "clerics"

 

[Assyrian]

Banks are run by clerics?

The Vatican Bank maybe...

 

[Standing Up]

Institute for Works of Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, usury by clerics...

I don't think most banks are run by clerics.

Good point

 

[Christos Anesti]

It is sad that usury has become such an accepted practice in nations that have a Christian history and majority. I can't complain too much though because sadly I involve myself in the sin of usury by using credit cards and with my car loan. If I really was ernest in fighiting usury I would probably have refrained from getting a credit card or car loan. I don't know how we could go back to the old traditions given the nature of a modern capitalist economy though? Capitalism without usury?

 

[Standing Up]

It is sad that usury has become such an accepted practice in nations that have a Christian history and majority. I can't complain too much though because sadly I involve myself in the sin of usury by using credit cards and with my car loan. If I really was ernest in fighiting usury I would probably have refrained from getting a credit card or car loan. I don't know how we could go back to the old traditions given the nature of a modern capitalist economy though? Capitalism without usury?

We'd have to set it up like the jubilee year and valuations that reset each 50 years. See the OT.

Just tossing it out, haven't really thought it through.