Usury and Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter DomSavio2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DomSavio2

Guest
So, I understand the reasoning behind why interest on loans is allowed nowadays even though the Church had always condemned usury. It seems like it mostly comes down to the fact that the circumstances changed such that money could now grow through investing, and so it is permissible to charge interest to cover the opportunity cost of the loan.

Using that logic, though, couldn’t somebody just say that circumstances have changed so much nowadays that contraception should be allowed? Couldn’t somebody say, for instance, that, because child mortality rates are so much lower than they once were and it is unfeasible for many poorer couples to have large families, contraception should be allowed in certain instances? They could then make the argument that just, as excessive interest still isn’t allowed, so excessive contraception shouldn’t be allowed.
 
Loans with interest are usury in the way that a family dinner is gluttony.
 
DomSavio2 said:
Couldn’t somebody say, for instance, that, because child mortality rates are so much lower than they once were and it is unfeasible for many poorer couples to have large families, contraception should be allowed in certain instances?
Click to expand...
The Church does not define how many children a couple should have. That is left up to the couple and the circumstances they are in. The Church teaches that a contraceptive sexual act denies the dignity of the couple. In effect, the act becomes selfish; the individual wants to use the other only for his/her own pleasure. Since there is this moral dimension to the issue, there cannot be any change to the Church’s teaching.

In any case, it is not necessary for a poor couple to have recourse to contraception. St. Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity have been teaching Natural Family Planning to the poor for decades.

https://www.popline.org/node/501078

Blessings
 
DomSavio2 said:
So, I understand the reasoning behind why interest on loans is allowed nowadays even though the Church had always condemned usury.
Click to expand...
The Church always did and still does condemn usury. What’s different is that nowadays we have vastly different kinds of loans and a vastly different economic system than was present in the Middle Ages. It can easily be argued that interest on many if not most loans in our economy would not class as usury, and this is the position the Church has taken as far as I know. The current stance on usury is an organic development in the application of what was always taught, not a change. Here is a lot of info and explanations on the subject: Usury FAQ, or, money on the Pill | Zippy Catholic

Contraception likewise always was and will be immoral. Just like there has been development regarding usury, there has also been development regarding contraception with the allowance of the use of NFP to avoid having another child.

Loans with interest are not intrinsically evil if they do not meet requirements for usury; usury is not just any and all interest but interest on a specific kind of loan. Likewise limiting the number of children you have is not intrinsically evil if you do so by non-contraceptive means.
 
Last edited:
DomSavio2 said:
It seems like it mostly comes down to the fact that the circumstances changed such that money could now grow through investing, and so it is permissible to charge interest to cover the opportunity cost of the loan.
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

Loans at interest and usery are NOT the same thing.
DomSavio2 said:
couldn’t somebody just say that circumstances have changed so much nowadays that contraception should be allowed?
Click to expand...
No.

Contraception is intrinsically evil.
 
In one, someone pays a fair price for a legitimate service.

In the other, an innocent child dies.
 
What others have said about usury - it’s a far cry different from interest on loans. Using chemicals or other means to withhold anything in the sexual embrace is always wrong.

As Catholics we believe that sex must include two things: love (consent, also marital bond) and openness to life. Everyone is so wishy washy about the second one, but we literally have LAWS that demand the first. Both are important. Always.

My husband and I are in a situation where we would prefer to wait a little while before welcoming another baby (mama is still sore!) so we use NFP. IT. IS. AMAZING.
 
fredystairs said:
In any case, it is not necessary for a poor couple to have recourse to contraception. St. Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity have been teaching Natural Family Planning to the poor for decades.

https://www.popline.org/node/501078
Click to expand...
God knows all our hearts. We can try to play a legalistic game of cat and mouse trying avoiding the natural rhythm of a women’s egg to not have kids, or just use a condom. Either way we can say we are interfering with Gods natural order. Lets be real here.

There’s so much more I can say about this, but I’ll hold my tongue. Peace…
 
Last edited:
“Interfering with God’s natural order”? That’s the point, NFP does not interfere with God’s natural order. Since a woman cannot get pregnant most days of her cycle, using those days to have relations does not interfere with God’s natural order. It’s using that order to prevent a pregnancy. Conversely, knowing the fertile days and having relations on those days will increase the possibility of becoming pregnant. NFP can be used both ways.

Using a condom directly interferes with the order as it blocks the natural consequence of the act. And as I mentioned above, it denies the dignity of the couple. It can never be licit.

Blessings
 
Last edited:
fredystairs said:
Using a condom directly interferes with the order as it blocks the natural consequence of the act. And as I mentioned above, it denies the dignity of the couple. It can never be licit.
Click to expand...
So what if we use a condom on the off cycle days when there is no egg? Is this still interfering?
 
fredystairs said:
Using a condom directly interferes with the order as it blocks the natural consequence of the act. And as I mentioned above, it denies the dignity of the couple. It can never be licit
Click to expand...
Or what does a Priest tell a couple who wants to get married, but one of them had a very active sexual life prior and had an incurable STD like herpes, etc… Does the Priest say, sorry, you can’t use condoms and will have to be infected with the STD after you get married?

These are real issues going on today.

Anybody comment??? Thoughts???
 
Last edited:
Even on the off days it still be interfering with the natural process. And if one was using NFP to determine that the woman was in her fertile period and one wanted to prevent a pregnancy st that time there would be no reason to use a condom.

Blessings
 
Usury is a moral issue, not an economic one.
People take interest on loans because they are interested in the future. This is economics.
People who take excessive interest on loans because the borrower has no alternative and is desperate are usurers.
The question of what is ‘excessive’ is dependent on circumstances, not mathematics. When dealing with a stranger, or loaning large sums, or on a risky venture, a relatively high rate of interest is perfectly sensible. Those who cannot afford to pay it should not take it. But when someone is in dire straits and the lender uses this as a lever to extract more interest this is usury.
This is not a matter of of percentages or quantities, it is quality.
 
Let me preface this by stating that every method of birth control, including NFP, has what is known as a failure rate, where one uses the method perfectly, yet the couple gets pregnant. The condom has probably the worst record. If one truly loved someone and had an incurable STD, then why would that person put the other at risk of catching the disease because the condom failed? That seems to me to be the height of selfishness; to put the other at risk of getting the disease.

Blessings
 
fredystairs said:
Let me preface this by stating that every method of birth control, including NFP, has what is known as a failure rate, where one uses the method perfectly, yet the couple gets pregnant. The condom has probably the worst record. If one truly loved someone and had an incurable STD, then why would that person put the other at risk of catching the disease because the condom failed? That seems to me to be the height of selfishness; to put the other at risk of getting the disease.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Good points addressed. So whats the remedy to fulfill Catholic law? Celibacy for marriage in such a circumstance?
 
Yes. Contraception is intrinsically evil. That means it is wrong no matter where, when, by whom, on what day of the month or who wins the world series.

God designed women to have signs that show when she is fertile and gave us rational minds to understand those signs. Observing those signs and acting based on this signs is following God’s plan. God could have designed women to be fertile always, or to only ovulate during intercourse as some mammals do. He allows us to have signs, and to sometimes refrain from the marital embrace during those fertile days if there is a good reason.
 
First, the herpes virus lives in 67% of the population. http://www.who.int/news-room/detail...are-infected-with-herpes-simplex-virus-type-1

It is not fatal, simply annoying and can be managed. It is dangerous only during childbirth so a woman and her doc work together to come up with a plan for birth where the child will not be unnecessarily exposed.

For something more serious, like HIV, honestly if I had HIV I would not expose anyone and would choose not to marry. Others may choose to enter a Josephite marriage, seek to marry someone else with HIV or the potential spouse may decide that they are willing to risk exposure. Those are all things that would be determined with much love and counsel from their physician and priest.

We must remember, marriage is not required of every person.
 
From my understanding, what makes usury immoral is charging something for nothing. That is the essence of usury and it applies always and everywhere. For example, all would agree that in a vacuum an instantaneous exchange of $1 for $2 is unjust. A just exchange leaves both parties with equal value–not one with more and the other less.

Therefore interest can be charged to compensate for those things that would make the lender have less or the borrower have more. As such, the Church defined usury as follows at the Fifth Lateran Council:
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.
Click to expand...
Therefore interest can be charged on a productive loan, to account for work and expenses, and to cover risk. The particular circumstances of a loan then will determine how much, if any interest is permitted.

The Church has defined contraception as follows (in the definition in the papal encyclical Casti Connubii:
any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life
Click to expand...
Circumstances aren’t going to make that result vary. What will vary is the extent to which a married couple carries out their mission and duty to bring forth new life. Births may be regulated for a just cause, but we must use just means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top