Francis urges priests not to push cohabiting couples away

[Tomdstone]

But, as manualman and corki implied, you’re not comparing apples to apples here. It seems you have to define exactly what you’re sinning against. It was never immoral to eat meat on Friday per se. But it is considered (from the standpoint of sin) immoral for a Catholic to disobey the Church. As is social injustice. But again, I’m not a moral theologian.

You implied that what is a mortal sin does not change over time. I mentioned slavery as a counterexample. If you want another counterexample, you could look at usury.

 

[Corki]

You implied that what is a mortal sin does not change over time. I mentioned slavery as a counterexample. If you want another counterexample, you could look at usury.

I won’t comment on the slavery issue since I am not well-read enough in that area but usury is an excellent example of developing doctrine.

Usury still is a sin. What has changed is the definition of usury and this has much more to do with economics than theology. Usury is a sin because it takes advantage of those who are vulnerable. Most developed countries have a system in place to control and regulate interest rates. This was not the case in biblical times and interest was random and often excessive. Predatory interest charge is usury and is sinful. Reasonable interest charged within a country’s legal framework does not take advantage of the vulnerable and may benefit them (eg micro loans in third world countries). It is not usury and is not a sin.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was thinking all the way back to this. Characterizing the millennia old tradition of asking people to resolve problems of stubbornly serious sin before partaking of the Eucharist is hardly using it as a “whipping tool.” It’s always possible that I misunderstood you (it sure happens enough), but this sure looked like you extrapolating Francis awfully far forward, not “following” him.

I’m certainly in agreement that catholics far too often scare seekers off with a list of rules that seems rigid before they ever encounter the hope of Christ. I’m just also concerned that we can’t “reform” by pretending that sins aren’t sins anymore so as to make people feel good. Christianity is full of these paradoxes: We’re called to be too merciful AND too worried about righteousness.

Understand that it is my opinion, not that of Pope Francis.

But I believe that it is the transforming grace Jesus gives that changes hearts and that through the Eucharist, a person who has the sincere desire to come closer to Christ, will receive the grace that will move them toward holiness.

Even those couples not living in accord with Catholic teaching on the issue, can be transformed through grace received in the Eucharist, so it makes no sense to ban them from the one who is the source of transforming grave, Jesus Christ.

This is of course the job of the Pope to decide and he of course doesn’t have to change doctrine to satisfy my hopeful desires.

FYI, next month my wife and myself celebrate our 40th anniversary, so it’s not for myself that I have this hope for change.

Jim

 

[Phemie]

I won’t comment on the slavery issue since I am not well-read enough in that area but usury is an excellent example of developing doctrine.

Usury still is a sin. What has changed is the definition of usury and this has much more to do with economics than theology. Usury is a sin because it takes advantage of those who are vulnerable. Most developed countries have a system in place to control and regulate interest rates. This was not the case in biblical times and interest was random and often excessive. Predatory interest charge is usury and is sinful. Reasonable interest charged within a country’s legal framework does not take advantage of the vulnerable and may benefit them (eg micro loans in third world countries). It is not usury and is not a sin.

Not sure the same could be said for “Payday Loans”.

 

[manualman]

Understand that it is my opinion, not that of Pope Francis.

But I believe that it is the transforming grace Jesus gives that changes hearts and that through the Eucharist, a person who has the sincere desire to come closer to Christ, will receive the grace that will move them toward holiness.

Even those couples not living in accord with Catholic teaching on the issue, can be transformed through grace received in the Eucharist, so it makes no sense to ban them from the one who is the source of transforming grave, Jesus Christ.

Perhaps that’s the underlying problem here. Eucharist is indeed a profound and joyful source of Grace in our lives. But a disciplinary decision that prohibits those apparently in a state of stubborn refusal to repent is NOT the same thing as “banning” that person from Christ. It’s a hard teaching, but repentance requires hard things. And repentance brings its own sources of Grace. You’re certainly right that we should work hard to make sure that people realize that it’s worth it.

I’m not certain you want me jumping into your personal life here, but I do know from personal experience that it can be hard to encourage loved ones to investigate the validity of previous marriages before ‘moving on.’ Far too many people see it as an intrusion into their personal lives, when the truth is that a marriage tribunal is inherently a ministry of mercy that seeks to help people discover and deal honestly with painful truths in their pasts. It gets a bad rap in a lot of public accounts from people who have dealt with it without having the framework of faith with which to view it.

 

[Tomdstone]

I won’t comment on the slavery issue since I am not well-read enough in that area but usury is an excellent example of developing doctrine.

Usury still is a sin. What has changed is the definition of usury and this has much more to do with economics than theology. Usury is a sin because it takes advantage of those who are vulnerable. Most developed countries have a system in place to control and regulate interest rates. This was not the case in biblical times and interest was random and often excessive. Predatory interest charge is usury and is sinful. Reasonable interest charged within a country’s legal framework does not take advantage of the vulnerable and may benefit them (eg micro loans in third world countries). It is not usury and is not a sin.

It was a mortal sin in the past to charge any interest on a loan. Today it is not.

 

[ProVobis]

You implied that what is a mortal sin does not change over time. I mentioned slavery as a counterexample. If you want another counterexample, you could look at usury.

It seems to me you’re trying to compile some kind of specific list of no-no’s that works for everyone the same way all the time. Again, I’m no moral theologian but I don’t think moral theologians like that oversimplistic approach. I may not formally charge interest or enslave someone but I can still commit acts of social injustice, can’t I? That’s the unchanging sin IMO.

 

[gilliam]

It was a mortal sin in the past to charge any interest on a loan. Today it is not.

Not exactly. See: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Usury

 

[gilliam]

You implied that what is a mortal sin does not change over time. I mentioned slavery as a counterexample. If you want another counterexample, you could look at usury.

Again, not exactly. For information on the Church and slavery, see:

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote, Pope Leo XIII (1890), too, condemned slavery, and so did the Second Vatican Council (1965).

The Catholic Church and slavery:
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

For in-depth information on slavery and Christianity I recommend the following article:

• Slavery

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Slavery

 

[Corki]

Not sure the same could be said for “Payday Loans”.

I agree. There are definitely many types of predatory lending practices that would be considered usury, IMHO. Certain sub-prime mortgages too. But not all types of loans with interest are.

 

[Corki]

It was a mortal sin in the past to charge any interest on a loan. Today it is not.

It was a mortal sin to practice usury. There was a point in time where there was no concept of interest that was not usury; now there is.

 

[gilliam]

It was a mortal sin to practice usury. There was a point in time where there was no concept of interest that was not usury; now there is.

I am not sure the Church ever defined usury as simply “taking interest on a loan.” See my previous post on the topic.

Not sure why we are talking about usury though. Adultery will always be sinful.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not exactly. See: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Usury

Your own link supports my contention that in the past it was a mortal sin to charge interest on a loan, but today it is not a sin.
From your link:
" the 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice. This prohibition is contained in the Decree of Gratian, q. 3, C. IV, at the beginning, and c. 4, q. 4, C. IV; and in 1. 5, t. 19 of the Decretals, for example in chapters 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. These chapters order the profit so obtained to be restored; and Alexander III (c. 4, “Super eo”, eodem) declares that he has no power to dispense from the obligation. Chapters 1, 2, and 6, eodem, condemn the stratagems to which even clerics resorted to evade the law of the general councils and the Third of the Lateran (1179) and the Second of Lyons (1274) condemn usurers. In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. “Ex gravi”, unit. Clem., “De usuris”, V, 5). …"

 

[Tomdstone]

It was a mortal sin to practice usury. There was a point in time where there was no concept of interest that was not usury; now there is.

the link given by Gilliam says that if any person maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic.

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, not exactly. For information on the Church and slavery, see:

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote, Pope Leo XIII (1890), too, condemned slavery, and so did the Second Vatican Council (1965).

The Catholic Church and slavery:
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

For in-depth information on slavery and Christianity I recommend the following article:

• Slavery

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Slavery

The RCC did condemn slavery at a certain point in time. However, was it always so? There are those who argue that it did not consistently condemn slavery and they point to the following:
362 AD
The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor excommunicates
anyone encouraging a slave to despise his master or withdraw
from his service. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th
century).
650 AD
Pope Martin I condemns people who teach slaves about freedom
or who encourage them to escape.
1089 AD
The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II imposed slavery on the
wives of priests. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th
century).
1226 AD
The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris
Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained
official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out
four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons
condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into
slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother
who is a slave.
1454 AD
Through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorises
the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan peoples
his armies may conquer.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree. There are definitely many types of predatory lending practices that would be considered usury, IMHO. Certain sub-prime mortgages too. But not all types of loans with interest are.

Then there are issues of contracts and consideration to make contracts valid.

Christ spoke about honoring contracts in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard.

 

[gilliam]

the link given by Gilliam says that if any person maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic.

Uh, no that is not what the council said. What the council said was:

[29]. Serious suggestions have been made to us that communities in certain places, to the divine displeasure and injury of the neighbour, in violation of both divine and human law, approve of usury. By their statutes, sometimes confirmed by oath, they not only grant that usury may be demanded and paid, but deliberately compel debtors to pay it. By these statutes they impose heavy burdens on those claiming the return of usurious payments, employing also various pretexts and ingenious frauds to hinder the return. We, therefore, wishing to get rid of these pernicious practices, decree with the approval of the sacred council that all the magistrates, captains, rulers, consuls, judges, counsellors or any other officials of these communities who presume in the future to make, write or dictate such statutes, or knowingly decide that usury be paid or, if paid, that it be not fully and freely restored when claimed, incur the sentence of excommunication. They shall also incur the same sentence unless within three months they delete from the books of their communities, if they have the power, statutes of this kind hitherto published, or if they presume to observe in any way these statutes or customs. Furthermore, since money-lenders for the most part enter into usurious contracts so frequently with secrecy and guile that they can be convicted only with difficulty, we decree that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to open their account books, when there is question of usury. If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy. "
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum15.htm#can29

So, again, it depends on what you consider usury.

But why talk about usury unless it is to beguile? The sin of adultery is in the 10 Commandments, it isn’t about to be reversed.

 

[Tomdstone]

Uh, no that is not what the council said. What the council said was:

[29]. Serious suggestions have been made to us that communities in certain places, to the divine displeasure and injury of the neighbour, in violation of both divine and human law, approve of usury. By their statutes, sometimes confirmed by oath, they not only grant that usury may be demanded and paid, but deliberately compel debtors to pay it. By these statutes they impose heavy burdens on those claiming the return of usurious payments, employing also various pretexts and ingenious frauds to hinder the return. We, therefore, wishing to get rid of these pernicious practices, decree with the approval of the sacred council that all the magistrates, captains, rulers, consuls, judges, counsellors or any other officials of these communities who presume in the future to make, write or dictate such statutes, or knowingly decide that usury be paid or, if paid, that it be not fully and freely restored when claimed, incur the sentence of excommunication. They shall also incur the same sentence unless within three months they delete from the books of their communities, if they have the power, statutes of this kind hitherto published, or if they presume to observe in any way these statutes or customs. Furthermore, since money-lenders for the most part enter into usurious contracts so frequently with secrecy and guile that they can be convicted only with difficulty, we decree that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to open their account books, when there is question of usury. If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy. "
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum15.htm#can29

So, again, it depends on what you consider usury.

But why talk about usury unless it is to beguile? The sin of adultery is in the 10 Commandments, it isn’t about to be reversed.

I didn’t say it was what the council said. I said it was what your link said. This was the link that you yourself provided and I copied directly from it.

 

[gilliam]

A little more on usary; and why it may be confusing to some. Sometime around 1620, according to theologian Ruston, “usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress [not a sin] to being a matter of private conscience [and] a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest” (1993: 173-4).

So we have a change in the definition of usury as excessive interest around 1620 during the Protestant Reformation and at the same time it becoming something that is a matter of private conscience. What might be termed a sin at the same time.

The What is more difficult to determine is whether the interest rate charged is fair or excessive.”Similarly, it is illustrative that, in contrast to the clear moral injunction against usury still expressed by the Church in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum Novarum as “voracious usury … an evil condemned frequently by the Church but nevertheless still practised in deceptive ways by avaricious men”, Pope John Paul II’s 1989 Sollicitude Rei Socialis lacks any explicit mention of usury except the vaguest implication by way of acknowledging the Third World Debt crisis.

 

[gilliam]

I didn’t say it was what the council said. I said it was what your link said. This was the link that you yourself provided and I copied directly from it.

I am not the magisterium, and neither is an encyclopedia But now we know what the council said and that should close the discussion.