Michael Hoffman Talks About Usury. What Do You Think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Athanasiy said:
The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not."
]
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up…people have just been duped into thinking its normal, and something everyone must succumb to in modern times, of course, this is great for banks and others loaning money.

Id like to see the CC talk more about this at the parish level, they need to be informing people that this is still wrong and should never be accepted as ‘the norm’. Maybe an official statement by the CC to banks and others in the money loaning industry would be enough to spark debate about this?
 
Athanasiy said:
Michael Hoffman gives a talk in a private home concerning the thesis of his new book, “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.”
youtube.com/watch?v=jT0grvk16NI
Click to expand...
Usury is defined as

“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

It’s still a sin.
 
SWolf #3
Usury is defined as
“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”
It’s still a sin.
Click to expand...
As a statement re usury, “The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not” is incorrect.

Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. It is Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) that gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].
 
I’m sorry to sound so harsh, but this is nothing more than thinly-veiled antisemitism from a holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist. Alot is left out of this talk, but an antisemitic message is being semaphored and like-minded people pick up on it.

This sort of thing has NO PLACE in the Church. As Catholics we should be on guard against this paranoid and hateful nonsense.
 
Abu said:
As a statement re usury, “The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not” is incorrect.

Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. It is Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) that gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine
Click to expand...
, Our Sunday Visitor].

I can see churchmen having a jaundiced view of taking interest in an economy in which virtually all borrowing to individuals simply impoverished the borrowers in a non-moving economy. After all, how can borrowing at interest really do anything good for a subsistence farmer. I have read that in India, the taking of interest essentially robs small farmers of most of their labor without ever ceasing to do so.

But on the other hand, I can truthfully say I have never acquired a single worthwhile asset without borrowing to acquire it. I do not fear an impoverished old age because I was not afraid to borrow when I was younger. I never borrowed to consume; only to invest.

Would anybody on this earth be better off if I had not? So, the bank, its officers, savers, and shareholders made some money off my energies and work. So what? They were doing me a favor, and I never resented them for it. And yes, they “risked” just as I did.

But that’s the difference between a dynamic economy and a moribund one. In India, the farmers couldn’t do more than gain a subsistence without borrowing. With borrowing, their lives are even more straitened, precisely because their economy is hidebound and, in the countryside, stagnant. In the U.S. one can make money on an asset with a little patience, a reasonable amount of work, and the passage of time, the passage of time being the biggest contributer of them all.
 
‘He that hath given forth his money upon usury, or hath taken increase, shall he live? he shall not live, saith the Lord.’

Ezekiel 18:12-13

'Each one was desirous of increasing his estate; and forgetful of what believers had either done before in the times of the apostles, or always ought to do, they, with the insatiable ardour of covetousness, devoted themselves to the increase of their property. Among the priests there was no devotedness of religion; among the ministers there was no sound faith: in their works there was no mercy; in their manners there was no discipline. In men, their beards were defaced; in women, their complexion was dyed: the eyes were falsified from what God’s hand had made them; their hair was stained with a falsehood. Crafty frauds were used to deceive the hearts of the simple, subtle meanings for circumventing the brethren.

They united in the bond of marriage with unbelievers; they prostituted the members of Christ to the Gentiles. They would swear not only rashly, but even more, would swear falsely; would despise those set over them with haughty swelling, would speak evil of one another with envenomed tongue, would quarrel with one another with obstinate hatred. Not a few bishops who ought to furnish both exhortation and example to others, despising their divine charge, became agents in secular business, forsook their throne, deserted their people, wandered about over foreign provinces, hunted the markets for gainful merchandise, while brethren were starving in the Church.

They sought to possess money in hoards, they seized estates by crafty deceits, they increased their gains by multiplying usuries. What do not such as we deserve to suffer for sins of this kind, when even already the divine rebuke has forewarned us, and said, “If they shall forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they shall profane my statutes, and shall not observe my precepts, I will visit their offences with a rod, and their sins with scourges”? [Psalm 88:32]

These things were before declared to us, and predicted.’

St. Cyprian of Carthage

‘What can be more unreasonable than to sow without land, without rain, without plows? All those who give themselves up to this damnable culture shall reap only tares. Let us cut off these monstrous births of gold and silver; let us stop this execrable fecundity.’

St. John Chrysostom

‘If you are a Christian, why do you scheme to have your idle money bear a return and make the need of your brother, for whom Christ died, the source of your enrichment?’

St. Hilary of Poitiers
 
Since a lender does lose the benefits from interest. or use of his money in other ways, that’s precisely what makes the charging of interest legitimate and worthy – he has expense and risk – a great Lateran Council understanding of the use of money.

In Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, Pope Pius XI states that “the ‘capitalist’ economic regime has spread everywhere” (#103) and ‘it is evident that this system is not to be condemned in itself. And surely it is not of its own nature vicious.’ ”

But those thus relying on feelings, whims, wants, desires, opinion and prejudices, fail utterly to face the reality which is:
“But with trade expanding in the middle and late middle ages, the science of economics continued to develop allowing the Church to see that the long held belief in the sterility of money was incorrect. The Church still wanted to defend the poor, but She also began to recognise that there exists an opportunity cost to money. On could morally lend money at a rate of interest that corresponded to what could have been obtained by the lender in an alternative investment decision had the money not been lent. The teaching underwent a development with a new understanding of money.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 76].

As Fr William G Most emphasises:
“The teaching on usury has not changed. Usury is taking excessive interest. Excessive interest rates remain unjust and sinful. Most states still have specific laws against usury. Society determines the precise amount that is excessive within its economic structures.”
See: *The Consciousness of Christ:
[catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=215&ChapNum=10]

As the use and value of money became better understood, “in the early sixteenth century, the Franciscan Juan de Medina became the first scholastic writer to defend the idea that risk assumed by the lender constituted legitimate grounds for charging interest.”
“Provided he demands a moderate interest for the money he lends, this demand is never unjust.” (Emphasis added by Woods to the *Catholic Encyclopedia *article).
[Note: *Catholic Encyclopedia, A Vermeersch].
The Church and the Market, Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr., Lexington Books, 2005, p 114-115].
 
Some of these posts make it clear to me that this topic is one of those things where modern catholics try and try to find anything they can in order to justify something that is popular in modern times, so it can be continued without any worry, that sounds like cherry picking to me, if its wrong, well, its WRONG, makes no difference whether its commonplace or popular in our times or not.

There are a few other topics like this where people will try to find anything they can in order to justify some modern practice, kind of like lawyers, trying to find ‘loopholes’ in biblical verses, so we can take part in them. lol
 
I wish that certain forum members would not dress up vile antisemitism in the garb of ultra-Catholic piety.

This Michael A. Hoffman has dozens of videos on youtube and most of them are overtly antisemitic, trotting out the same tired lies about Jews which have been around since the middle ages. There is NO PLACE for this rottenness in our Church. None.
 
Will just say that banking is an integral part of any society with economic aspirations. There has always been a place for “return on investment” as a concept by which lenders could either structure as a loan to be repaid with interest or as a portion of equity in the borrower’s environment. Islamic banking works in the latter fashion, that is how they get around the ban on interest, the bank just takes a direct interest in the asset and is looking for a return on that asset to make money from its investment. In the West, that is the difference between an investor lending money to a corporation, buying a corporation’s bond issue or buying a company’s stock.

So there is a place for interest as the opportunity cost of money. Shutting this down will directly affect the economy, no two ways around that. Imagine trying to hold up the real estate market if one is no longer allowed to pay interest on a mortgage…
 
Abu said:
Since a lender does lose the benefits from interest. or use of his money in other ways, that’s precisely what makes the charging of interest legitimate and worthy – he has expense and risk – a great Lateran Council understanding of the use of money.
Click to expand...
The “expense and risk” would only apply to a no-collateral loan under a full reserve banking system.

Under a modern banking system, the principal is usually protected on a collateral of some kind (house, car, etc.), which can be repossessed in case of default. Thus, the transaction carries no risk to the lender.

Further, the claim that the lender “cannot use money in other ways” is also incorrect, because the modern banking is fractional reserve banking. Under a fractional reserve system, the loan principal does not even exist until a loan is paid out. Yes, you have read it right. The bank borrows you money that it does not have. (The bank is only legally obliged to maintain a certain ratio of loans to reserves, which is typically about 30. Therefore, a bank with $1M cash in the vault can loan out $30M, thus literally creating $29M out of thin air.) Since the loan principal does not exist before the transaction, then it cannot be used in other ways, simply because it is not there!

Therefore, yes, the modern banking system is usury by definition.

There is also a very good mathematical reason why God forbade usury…
 
weller2 said:
The “expense and risk” would only apply to a no-collateral loan under a full reserve banking system.

Under a modern banking system, the principal is usually protected on a collateral of some kind (house, car, etc.), which can be repossessed in case of default. Thus, the transaction carries no risk to the lender.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. In cases of mortgage defaults, the house is left in much worse shape, and therefore less value, than when it was mortgaged. There’s also the cost of repossession, legal fees, the cost of selling, and the loss of time where there’s a vacant tenant where mortgages could be paid.
Further, the claim that the lender “cannot use money in other ways” is also incorrect, because the modern banking is fractional reserve banking. Under a fractional reserve system, the loan principal does not even exist until a loan is paid out. Yes, you have read it right. The bank borrows you money that it does not have. (The bank is only legally obliged to maintain a certain ratio of loans to reserves, which is typically about 30. Therefore, a bank with $1M cash in the vault can loan out $30M, thus literally creating $29M out of thin air.) Since the loan principal does not exist before the transaction, then it cannot be used in other ways, simply because it is not there!
Click to expand...
Therefore, yes, the modern banking system is usury by definition.
Click to expand...
There is also a very good mathematical reason why God forbade usury…
Click to expand...
This however, I’m inclined to agree with.
 
Canto XLV
BY EZRA POUND
With Usura

With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that design might cover their face,
with usura
hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luz
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,
with usura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly
with usura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
with usura the line grows thick
with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling.
Stonecutter is kept from his tone
weaver is kept from his loom
WITH USURA
wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no gain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St. Trophime
Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man’s courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
 
Athanasiy said:
Please use the arguments rather than cheap jokes.
Click to expand...
When the thesis is nonsensical, the only response is our darling coniglia’s “cheap jokes”.

Nothing angers prideful autodidacts more than when their pet theses are met with mirth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top