Is it time to move on?

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

We discussed this at length in one of my middle eastern studies classes. They don't allow for any type of loans. They believe that charging an interest rate is a sin (making money from money). It has changed in the recent past (at least a decade or so ago) and you are seeing them progress economically now.

When you don't have people loaning money, you cannot have a growing economy. It "doubles" in a sense the money that is out there. Basic economics 101.

So the Bible's wrong on this?

ETA: Probably should be more clear, my understanding is that the New Testament doesn't really go into it, but it was the Church's teaching, based on Thomas Aquinas, that charging interest is wrong. It was pointed to as a place where the Church has changed over the years to adjust to society. Is it a good example of this? Are Islamic countries falling behind because they haven't changed in the same way?

 

[steve_bakr]

Perhaps the wrong place for it, but;

I have often been called a "Pick and Choose Catholic", because there are certain views of the Church that I just don't agree with regarding homosexuality, abortion, the place of women and sex. We can all agree that the human race has moved forward tremendously since its dawn, both biologically and culturally, and with this progression more and more people have become accepting of homosexuality and abortion, and we now realize that women are equal to men and that sex is not just an act to procreate, but also a method of physically connecting with the the person you love.

And I was thinking today; if anyone were to acknowledge and accept these progressions, wouldn't it be God Himself? The being we spend our lives walking under the guidance of. I mean, this guy has been keeping an eye on us for thousands of years. You'd think that He would be the first one to get onto this stuff. I think that the Catholic Church may be a little behind the times with their policies (for lack of a better word) on this stuff.

Does any one agree with me? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?

Cardinal Newman wrote an essay--back when essays were more like books--called "On the Development of Doctrine," which, of course, posited that Catholic doctrine--to use another word--evolved rather than having come out fully formed from the beginning.

If that is true, it only makes sense that Catholic doctrine is still evolving or developing now, and will continue to do so in the future.

That concept often draws some fire, just as it did when it was first published in the 19th century. Curiously, though, Pope Benedict XVI was a great admirer of Newman, and chose him for sainthood.

Judging from history, our Church develops rather belatedly--some even say, glacially. Perhaps that is how it ought to be.

If any of this is true, though, the Church is behind the times. The question remains, In what way will the Church evolve--and when?

Judging from the 20th century, oftentimes those visionary theologians who foresaw future developments--and some of whom were vindicated at Vatican II--were investigated, censored, even silenced by the Vatican.

One example is John Courtney Murray, who was ordered not to write anything about theology for a period which ended up lasting for
three years. He eventually became the main architect of the document on Religious Freedom at Vatican II.

Another of Newman's essays might even be more controversial today than it was in the 19th century. It was called, "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine."

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think you're doing some hairsplitting, which you don't have to do. We're Catholics here. I'm reporting what I've read of Christian history books, one written by a Roman Catholic

BTW, The oiginal meaning of usury is paying or receiving interest, which the Church eventually acknowledged had become part of the economy.

Usury is the practice of making loans with excessive or abusive interest rates. The question is, what is "excesive or abusive"?

Regarding the Jews, it was against the law for them to loan to a Jew at interest, but not to loan at interest to a non-Jew. I suspect that it was the same among most of the Middle East. Regarding Christian Europe, most of the bankers who loaned money to Christians were Jews, because it was easier (and more expensive) to borrow from them.

By the way, the easy way to get around the sin of usury is to charge fees, which is what most business people, Christians would do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What makes socialism immoral by its very nature? Links to church teachings or personal thoughts are both welcome.

The concept of everyone pooling their resources forcefully (by law) is what makes socialism immoral. The fact that you can get by without pulling your weight, when capable, is immoral. It's one thing to set up a kibbutz or a commune where everyone agrees todo so. But for it to be forced is wrong.

My thought.

 

[princess_ballet]

So the Bible's wrong on this?

ETA: Probably should be more clear, my understanding is that the New Testament doesn't really go into it, but it was the Church's teaching, based on Thomas Aquinas, that charging interest is wrong. It was pointed to as a place where the Church has changed over the years to adjust to society. Is it a good example of this? Are Islamic countries falling behind because they haven't changed in the same way?

Look, I don't know if the Bible is wrong about this or not. I'm just telling what I know about how those societies have failed to progress economically, how they're doing it now, and how I don't want us to go down that road.

 

[princess_ballet]

Usury is the practice of making loans with excessive or abusive interest rates. The question is, what is "excesive or abusive"?

Regarding the Jews, it was against the law for them to loan to a Jew at interest, but not to loan at interest to a non-Jew. I suspect that it was the same among most of the Middle East. Regarding Christian Europe, most of the bankers who loaned money to Christians were Jews, because it was easier (and more expensive) to borrow from them.

By the way, the easy way to get around the sin of usury is to charge fees, which is what most business people, Christians would do.

To my understanding, in Islam it is more strict. It isn't about excessive or abusive interest rates. You simply cannot charge an interest rate (because that means you're still making money off of money).

And they have gone to charging fees for loans so that they can get around this.

 

[steve_bakr]

Usury is the practice of making loans with excessive or abusive interest rates. The question is, what is "excesive or abusive"?

Regarding the Jews, it was against the law for them to loan to a Jew at interest, but not to loan at interest to a non-Jew. I suspect that it was the same among most of the Middle East. Regarding Christian Europe, most of the bankers who loaned money to Christians were Jews, because it was easier (and more expensive) to borrow from them.

By the way, the easy way to get around the sin of usury is to charge fees, which is what most business people, Christians would do.

You are imprinting today's meaning of the word "usury" onto the past. The original meaning was to charge anything over the amount loaned. It doesn't matter what the interest rate was. Charging fees would have been considered usury because it is over the amount loaned. The word "usury" has evolved into meaning excessive interest rates or fees, but that's not the original meaning.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Look, I don't know if the Bible is wrong about this or not. I'm just telling what I know about how those societies have failed to progress economically, how they're doing it now, and how I don't want us to go down that road.

Princess, in principal, we cannot believe the Bible is the Word of God, and also that it could possibly be wrong.

No, the Bible is not ever wrong. But you have to understand the context. God constantly brought the Israelites out of slavery. From the beginning. Just because something was allowed, said Jesus, doesn't mean it was right. It was appropriate at the time. The law of Moses allowed divorce even thought it wasn't so from the beginning, because their hearts were still hard.

 

[steve_bakr]

The concept of everyone pooling their resources forcefully (by law) is what makes socialism immoral. The fact that you can get by without pulling your weight, when capable, is immoral. It's one thing to set up a kibbutz or a commune where everyone agrees todo so. But for it to be forced is wrong.

My thought.

The original Christians pooled their resources. I think it might have been "forceful" because Peter told that couple that held back half their money to drop dead and they did!

 

[princess_ballet]

Princess, in principal, we cannot believe the Bible is the Word of God, and also that it could possibly be wrong.

No, the Bible is not ever wrong. But you have to understand the context. God constantly brought the Israelites out of slavery. From the beginning. Just because something was allowed, said Jesus, doesn't mean it was right. It was appropriate at the time. The law of Moses allowed divorce even thought it wasn't so from the beginning, because their hearts were still hard.

My point was that I don't know what the Bible necessarily says about usury. You guys can debate what it means and throw different definitions out. Whatever. I'm just saying that making loans and charging an interest is necessary to grow an economy.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

And I'm not sure what the point of what you're second paragraph is about. You talk about context and then go on about divorce?

 

[Erose]

The original Christians pooled their resources. I think it might have been "forceful" because Peter told that couple that held back half their money to drop dead and they did!

St. Paul also said that he who does not work should not eat as well.

 

[steve_bakr]

St. Paul also said that he who does not work should not eat as well.

Yes, the context of that was the early Christians expected Christ's imminent return. Some people were not performing their earthly duties because they thought the parousia could come at any moment. Paul wanted the Christian communities to maintain an orderly society. BTW. He meant able-bodied workers, of course.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The original Christians pooled their resources. I think it might have been "forceful" because Peter told that couple that held back half their money to drop dead and they did!

They drop dead because they withheld resources and then lied that they had given all they had.
"A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. <A name=52005003>But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” <A name=52005005>When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. <A name=52005006>The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
<A name=52005007>After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. <A name=52005008>Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” <A name=52005009>Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” <A name=52005010>At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. <A name=52005011>And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Annanias and Sapphira died because they lied to God, not because they didn't give all they had, and the text suggests that it was to be given voluntarily.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My point was that I don't know what the Bible necessarily says about usury. You guys can debate what it means and throw different definitions out. Whatever. I'm just saying that making loans and charging an interest is necessary to grow an economy.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

And I'm not sure what the point of what you're second paragraph is about. You talk about context and then go on about divorce?

To clear up the confusion, read the first sentence of the second paragraph. The Bible is never wrong. The part about Moses and divorce was an example of when the Pharisees asked Jesus whether the Bible is wrong.

Regarding usury, yes, there is text in the Bible that tells us not to loan money usuriously. (if that's a word). But in the time since Christ, Christians loaned to other Christians, but if a Christian couldn't find a lender at acceptable rates, they often went to Jews for loans. It was ok for Jews to loan to other than Jews at usury.

 

[steve_bakr]

To clear up the confusion, read the first sentence of the second paragraph. The Bible is never wrong. The part about Moses and divorce was an example of when the Pharisees asked Jesus whether the Bible is wrong.

Regarding usury, yes, there is text in the Bible that tells us not to loan money usuriously. (if that's a word). But in the time since Christ, Christians loaned to other Christians, but if a Christian couldn't find a lender at acceptable rates, they often went to Jews for loans. It was ok for Jews to loan to other than Jews at usury.

That isn't how it was during the time of Christ, but whatever.

I've tried to explain what usury meant. Here's a good Catholic definition from the Borromeo Catechism: "Whatever is received beyond the principal...is usury."

If you research the history on usury and the Church, you'll find that the Church went around on this issue. Pope Pius V condemned it in 1569.

Eventually, because of the necessities of economics--ie., everybody had to resort to it--restrictions let up until the Church's position on usury today.

Without nickel and dimeing this issue to death, the original point was that there are positons that the Church has changed as the centuries rolled along.

It comes down to what Cardinal Newman wrote about in the 19th century: Catholic doctrine develops. This concept is acknowledged in the current Catechism.

Some Catholics seem to think that we ought not to admit this. But to my mind development of doctrine is a good process to have because it will ultimately help the Church avoid fossilization.

I'm talking about a living Church with a living tradition, meaning--as Pierre de Caussade might say--the Holy Spirit still speaks today, if we but listen.