What's wrong with change?

[Dominus Fidelis]

No, the authority does not come from the bible at all, the authority to teach is the magisterium and from that comes the bible. The magisterium comes from God, we know because the Church is visible; it is a divine visible institution that can be physically traced to Christ. This is how we know it but we believe it and accept it because we have faith.

And it isn’t circular, this was my point- the buck stops at the Church, it does not go in circles.

Michelle-

I believe in the Church because I was given faith in the Gospel one day at Church. The Apostolic Church is a logical extension of Jesus' literal words in the Gospel.

It is circular to say one believes in the Bible because the Church says its true and to believe in the Church because the Bible says so, if anyone does say such a thing.

 

[Benedicta00]

Thanks. But I have tried the pm route and received no response.



Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I apologize but I haven’t the time to respond but I’ll let you know here, I do not care for debates via PM. Thanks anyway.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes, I am aware Capitalism is built on human greed and usury.

It's not a sin for a Catholic to cooperate in a sin?

Capitalism and business isn’t a sin in of itself- it is what we fallen people made of it. It isn’t evil but we fallen people can make it evil by our wounds of original sin, e.g. greed. Didn’t geocajun give the CCC reference to this? A Catholic can work in a bank granting loans as long as he is moral in his practices he commits no sin because the act of loaning money isn’t evil.

To give an example, a Catholic pharmacist may be committing a sin if they knowingly fill a prescription of ABC for contraceptive use because ABC is evil in of itself. A banker who loans money isn’t committing a sin because the act, the thing isn’t evil, what we make of it is evil.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Capitalism and business isn’t a sin in of itself- it is what we fallen people made of it. It isn’t evil but we fallen people can make it evil by our wounds of original sin, e.g. greed. Didn’t geocajun give the CCC reference to this? A Catholic can work in a bank granting loans as long as he is moral in his practices he commits no sin because the act of loaning money isn’t evil.

To give an example, a Catholic pharmacist may be committing a sin if they knowingly fill a prescription of ABC for contraceptive use because ABC is evil in of itself. A banker who loans money isn’t committing a sin because the act, the thing isn’t evil, what we make of it is evil.

Ok, I'm getting confused again. I thought usury, any usury, was a sin, period. For example, if a Catholic loans money to a friend and charges any interest, that is a sin. Is that not the case?

 

[Benedicta00]

Good point! Why isn't this a sin though? I mean, doesn't it encourage a sin, so to speak?

If we use your very strict logic, then if you right now are financing anything at all- house, car credit cards anything, Catholic school tuition even, then aren’t you participating in their sin as well?

There is a objective principle in this of what is morally right and wrong but applied, sin lies in the will. As long as you are not willing the sin, IOW as long as you do not set the standard of exploiting people or you yourself exploit them or you skip out on a loan, you really are not willfully sinning. You have to live in this world, you have to afford a house and transpiration and what ever else, you just can not become attached the things of this world and how the world operates, just live in it and do not become of it. Sin will only lie in your intent and will.

 

[nyj]

Ok, I'm getting confused again. I thought usury, any usury, was a sin, period. For example, if a Catholic loans money to a friend and charges any interest, that is a sin. Is that not the case?

My understanding is, is that if the Catholic loans money to a friend and charges interest in an attempt to make a profit, that is the sin. If interest is charged, such that the Catholic making the loan recooperates the value of that money, as if they had kept it themselves (ie: factoring in inflation), that is not a sin.

Example:

I loan someone 1,000 dollars. Inflation is at 5%. I charge them 5% interest. Not usury.

I loan someone 1,000 dollars. Inflation is at 5%. I charge them 10% interest. Usury.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Ok, makes sense.

And inflation didn't exist in the past, because the economy was different, so that's why any interest was forbidden in the past, right?

PS

Thanks everyone for explaining this with patience. I've just been a moron on this subject apparently and was really confused!

 

[Maggie893]

Personally I have always understood usury this way.

It is sinful to take interest on a loan when the loan is given to assist a person in a time of struggle as they take care of basic needs.
It is not usury to take interest on a loan when the loan is given to assist a person in accumulating wealth, then a fair share of the accumulated wealth is expected.

In other words John Smith asks Tom Doe for $100, because his car needs to be repaired. Tom Doe should loan this money freely and John Smith should pay it back timely.

However if John Smith asks Tom Doe for $100 with which he plans to purchase widgits that he will then sell for a profit, then Tom Doe can expect a "reasonable" return on his investment and John Smith should pay back the loan timely with interest.

Interesting article from Catholic Workers regarding the Pope's statement to them.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/usury.html
[size=+2][/size]
[size=+2]JOHN PAUL II CALLS FOR END TO USURY: Support for Peter Maurin, Catholic Worker Theme[/size]

On April 14, 1999, Pope John Paul II addressed the members of the National Council of Anti-Usury Foundations and their regional delegations.

The Holy Father gave a special welcome to about one thousand volunteers "who came to call the public's attention to the worrisome and, unfor-tunately, widespread phenomena of usury, which often brings with it dramatic social consequences."

The Pope continued, "I know well, dear friends, the difficulties that you face. But I know that you are determined and united in fighting this serious social evil. Continue to combat usury, giving hope to individuals and families who are its victims. The Pope encourages you to pursue your generous work to build a more just society, one of solidarity, and more attentive to the demands of the needy."

In 1997 Bishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Vatican Congretation for the Doctrine of the Faith had said that "It seems opportune to publish a new encyclical on the subject of usury and, on the use of money in general," and that this document should be proposed energetically both to people involved in pastoral activity as well as to those in economic endeavors. Bishop Bertone not only denounced the critical aspects of usury, but also "the problem of loans among nations which ends up by creating the problem of international debt."

To Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day, halting usury was a very important step in establishing a just society.

Peter Maurin wrote an easy essay on the subject:

[size=+2]Legalized Usury[/size]
Because John Calvin legalized
money lending at interest
the State has legalized
money-lending at interest.
Because the State has legalized
money-lending at interest
home-owners have mortgaged their homes..
Because the State has legalized
money-lending at interest,
farmers have mortgaged their farms.
Because the State has legalized
money-lending at interest,
institutions have mortgaged
their buildings.
Because the State has legalized
money-lending at interst,
Congregations have
mortgaged their churches.
Because the State has legalized
Money-lending at interest,
cities, counties, States,
and the Federal Government
have mortgaged themselves
in all kinds of financial difficulties
because the State has legalized
money-lending at interest.

Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XIX, No. 3, May-June 1999.

 

[nyj]

Ok, makes sense.

And inflation didn't exist in the past, because the economy was different, so that's why any interest was forbidden in the past, right?

That's how I understand it. Yes.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

That's how I understand it. Yes.

Ok, that makes sense to me, thanks. I'll just go with your understanding because my head is hurting now.

 

[geocajun]

Personally I have always understood usury this way.

It is sinful to take interest on a loan when the loan is given to assist a person in a time of struggle as they take care of basic needs.
It is not usury to take interest on a loan when the loan is given to assist a person in accumulating wealth, then a fair share of the accumulated wealth is expected.

In other words John Smith asks Tom Doe for $100, because his car needs to be repaired. Tom Doe should loan this money freely and John Smith should pay it back timely.

However if John Smith asks Tom Doe for $100 with which he plans to purchase widgits that he will then sell for a profit, then Tom Doe can expect a "reasonable" return on his investment and John Smith should pay back the loan timely with interest.

Interesting article from Catholic Workers regarding the Pope's statement to them.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/usury.html

Maggie, that is my understanding as well. You did a great job of explaining it too. Much better than I could have.

 

[NewToLife]

And inflation didn't exist in the past, because the economy was different, so that's why any interest was forbidden in the past, right?

This is simply incorrect, inflation was experienced in the ancient world as well as today, here's a link giving some historical information;

http://www.oenb.at/en/ueber_die_oen...dgeschichte/antike/money_in_ancient_times.jsp

To save anyone linking though we have information such as the following presented clearly recording inflation;

The First Peloponnesian War (431 B.C. to 404 B.C.) was followed by a bout of inflation when Athens reacted to the growing competition of the Corinthian currency by raising silver production without contemplating the consequences of a rise in the volume of money.

Inflation in Roman times is also addressed.

 

[Benedicta00]

My understanding is, is that if the Catholic loans money to a friend and charges interest in an attempt to make a profit, that is the sin. If interest is charged, such that the Catholic making the loan recooperates the value of that money, as if they had kept it themselves (ie: factoring in inflation), that is not a sin.

Example:

I loan someone 1,000 dollars. Inflation is at 5%. I charge them 5% interest. Not usury.

I loan someone 1,000 dollars. Inflation is at 5%. I charge them 10% interest. Usury.

Right…

I look at it like this, if I work at a bank and the interest rate is what ever and that is what I charge on their behalf- I am working in bank it is a business who has a different criteria on what institutes a interest rate I do not sin by processing or approving a loan, I don’t profit from it- I work there I get a salary or commission but I make no direct profit off of the person and I don’t set the interest rate.

Now if I am a guy named Vinny and I work for a guy named Quito, and I charge you a very unfair interest rate so we can make a profit off of you, I am sinning.

Business applies a interest rates based on the risk they take in lending you the money, to keep them in business, not to exploit you. You get a fair rate if you have a record of paying the money back; you get a higher rate if you are a risk for not paying it back. I do not think that is a sin, I think it is just business where we both can befit from one another.

Interest rates are based on our economy and things that really are out of the average Joe’s control. I don’t think it is even legal to charge any more that 18 or 21 % but I’m not sure- but there is a limit to what intuitions can change. There is a beginning rate and a limit and what is determined is you and your ability to pay. I do not believe this is the sin of Usury.

I believe the sin is just when we take advantage of the person or the situation. If someone cones to me to borrow money and I used that as opportunity to make something off of it then that is the sin. Not lending in of itself.

 

[nyj]

This is simply incorrect, inflation was experienced in the ancient world as well as today, here's a link giving some historical information;

http://www.oenb.at/en/ueber_die_oen...dgeschichte/antike/money_in_ancient_times.jsp

To save anyone linking though we have information such as the following presented clearly recording inflation...

Yes, and I'm sure money was as volatile then, as it is now. Exactly how many people had stock tickers back then?

 

[NewToLife]

Exactly how many people had stock tickers back then?

What has that to do with a claim that inflation didnt exist in the past? Clearly it did and I would doubt that your Church would be ignorant of such a basic fact. In the light of that I was pretty sure that if there was an explanation this wasnt it, my curiousity has kept me interested in this thread. And that curiousity paid off when I read Maggie893's explanation which I found a perfectly credible position.

 

[geocajun]

I have to agree with Maggies article, that an encyclical on the subject of money in our time, addressing usury would be nice.

 

[Dream]

Alright, I'm confused. How much interest is considered an acceptable amount? Should we just look at the prime rate and base our judgement off of that or should we look at the CPI?

Also, if there was nobody that made a profit off of loans, it would be unlikely that any of you would live in a house, unless of course you paid cash up-front.

 

[nyj]

Alright, I'm confused. How much interest is considered an acceptable amount? Should we just look at the prime rate and base our judgement off of that or should we look at the CPI?

This is probably an issue most of us will never have to worry about. Do you ever foresee yourself lending money in amounts where you'll have to worry about inflation and cost of living increases?

And if you do, chances are, you wouldn't have to worry about even then because you'd be able to tell the borrower to just forget about any sort of interest because you're well off to begin with.

 

[Dream]

This is probably an issue most of us will never have to worry about. Do you ever foresee yourself lending money in amounts where you'll have to worry about inflation and cost of living increases?

And if you do, chances are, you wouldn't have to worry about even then because you'd be able to tell the borrower to just forget about any sort of interest because you're well off to begin with.

No, but our economy would be in shambles if nobody were to make a profit off of charging interest.

 

[nyj]

No, but our economy would be in shambles if nobody were to make a profit off of charging interest.

So you think it's reasonable to have interest rates as high as 25% in some instances?

I remember I had a Structure card, the interest rate was 21%. That was as low as it'd go.

Of course, I personally have sworn off all credit cards. I pay with cash, and only with cash. I do not spend outside of my means, I do not borrow to buy what I cannot afford then and now. I do not think I have a negative impact on the economy because of my spending habits.

Will I have to get a mortgage, yes, I will eventually. However, a mortgage is somewhat different. You are paying interest on an item which is appreciating in value, not depreciating.