Is it sinful to work for a bank as a teller or a branch manager?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Longbow76
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usury is not the interest a bank pays you, it is the interest they require of you to loan money to you.
I know what you mean, but the idea seems pretty comparable. If I use the bank’s money to buy a car, I pay them interest. If they use my money as deposits, they pay me interest. In either case it is presumed the use of the money is worth something, thus interest is paid. I’ve never quite understood the Church’s previous ban on interest. Why would anyone loan funds for zero return? (Of course, buying U.S. Treasury bonds comes pretty close to that.)
 
40.png
patrick9999:
“One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made”
So what are your thoughts on the fact that the Church no longer condemns this practice?
Well, if someone really wants to go down that rabbit hole…
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/

I’m not endorsing the arguments made there (I am not sure how much I am in agreement with them), but there’s someone’s answer.

For balance, one may read this:
http://frcoulter.com/presentations/usury/index.html
 
Last edited:
40.png
JimG:
My bank pays me about a quarter of 1% on my savings. Is that usurious? Should I insist that they pay me nothing?
To reiterate: the Church does not condemn the just, fair, reasonable taking of interest in an economy such as ours, where money is not limited to a finite, unchanging amount (e.g., “there is a total of $1 trillion dollars in circulation, and there will never be any more than that”).

One-quarter of one percent interest is by no stretch of the imagination usurious. In fact, it’s pretty meager. I am quite sure the bank is making far more than .25% on their loans. I would be finding a better rate if I could.
What does moral theology say about negative interest rates?
I am 99.9999% sure that moral theology doesn’t address this at all.
Working as a teller is OK but there might be better chance for advancement in the home loan department or in wealth management.
Being well-connected politically doesn’t hurt anything either. But very often you have to sell big pieces of your soul, to get that well-connected.
Career politics seems to be the devil’s favorite playground, and his most lucrative means of harvesting souls. Sounds cynical, I know, but from what I’m seeing today, it seems truer than ever.
 
I’ve never ubderstood that either. St Thomas says something about how charging interest is selling two things, the money itself, and then the use of that money.
I’ve never understood what he meant by selling the money though, as the lendee has to give it back, so clearly the interest is the price of the use (factoring in risk, opportunity, etc), not of the money itself.
 
Well, he was a great logician as well. Which is why it’s confusing when says something so apparently illogical. But maybe economic questions just weren’t top of mind for him as busied himself dictating 6 treatises at a time.
 
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
40.png
patrick9999:
“One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made”
So what are your thoughts on the fact that the Church no longer condemns this practice?
Well, if someone really wants to go down that rabbit hole…
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/

I’m not endorsing the arguments made there (I am not sure how much I am in agreement with them), but there’s someone’s answer.

For balance, one may read this:
http://frcoulter.com/presentations/usury/index.html
Good stuff, but it would take me hours to read all this, and right at this time, I don’t have those hours. I am dealing with a very fluid family medical situation of a loved one (good news today, doctor called, it wasn’t a stroke, very thankful to Almighty God for that), sole cook, errand-runner, and caregiver for the entire family, and homeschooling my son on top of that. The plate’s pretty full. But I will bookmark both articles.

I am entirely in favor of “going down this rabbit hole” — though the situation is quite a bit more nuanced, I would hate to see usury be another Humanae vitae situation, that is, nobody believes, everybody does what they want to, many people aren’t even aware there’s a problem, and you never hear about it from the pulpit. It is kind of “apples and oranges” but it still bears looking into.

In the meantime, I would advise the OP and anyone else that there is a principle called in dubio libertas — “liberty if there is a doubt” — and not to worry oneself to death, or fear that something is sinful when it’s not. Again, it is a bit more nuanced than saying “you can never, ever, get more money back than you loaned out to someone”. And as I said earlier, I have never understood why you can rent everything else on God’s green earth, but you can’t “rent money”.
 
St. Thomas was a great theologian, but he was no more an economist than he was a medical expert.
But he has good company–today’s Catholic bishops tend to be wretched at economics, too!

:crazy_face: 😱

doc hawk, the displaced economics professor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top