Usury and the Reformability of Church Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter McMulligan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On the other hand, it seems awfully convenient to just say “Oh, that wasn’t REALLY an infallible teaching, just a reformable discipline” whenever something seems to have changed, no matter how repeatedly, emphatically, and/or authoritatively it had been taught in the past. This sort of thing gives hope to those who expect other teachings (male priesthood, no contraception, etc.) to also change in the future. For centuries, usury was just as roundly condemned as ABC is today.
YES!! That’s exactly the issue I have when I’m trying to defend the faith.

If the Church can claim “that wasn’t infallibly declared” on a myriad of teachings, how can a Catholic defend current teachings (such as the ban on embryonic stem cell research(ESCR)) with the assurance that this, too, will not change?? The ban on ESCR
has not been formally and infallibly declared.
 
On the other hand, it seems awfully convenient to just say “Oh, that wasn’t REALLY an infallible teaching, just a reformable discipline” whenever something seems to have changed, no matter how repeatedly, emphatically, and/or authoritatively it had been taught in the past. This sort of thing gives hope to those who expect other teachings (male priesthood, no contraception, etc.) to also change in the future. For centuries, usury was just as roundly condemned as ABC is today.

Personally I do believe that usury (original definition-- i.e. taking interest) probably is objectively immoral. I also notice that the Church has never actually said that it was ok. I wouldn’t be surprised if the traditional anti-usury teaching was reemphasized again sometime in the future.

Don’t Muslim countries use some sort of alternative (non-interest-based) banking/investment system? Why can’t we? It just makes me a bit nervous that our entire economic system is built upon a practice that was condemned as immoral by the Church for 1700+ years.
You are right, of course. The fact is that these teachings could also change. That doesn’t make them optional now, and doesn’t mean they will change. But they could change.
 
The Church never taught error on usury.

The early documents were decretals, not teachings.

Decretals are matters of discipline, NOT teachings.

Church teachings are those concerning faith or morals, that are authorized by the Pope, that apply to ALL CHRISTIANS, when the Pope is teaching as Pope (as the head of the Church)
AND WHEN HE INTENDS TO TEACH.
No need to get agitated. In my original post I pointed to an encyclical clearly describing usury as meaning all interest. The statements in encyclicals, while not usually infallible, are considered authoritative and not simply matters of discipline. The documents of several ecumenical councils also address the issue of usury. Nor was it accepted by the theologians of the past that usury was simply a matter of discipline rather than doctrine.
 
You are right, of course. The fact is that these teachings could also change. That doesn’t make them optional now, and doesn’t mean they will change. But they could change.
I think it’s important to again emphasize that neither this usury issue, nor any other historical issue, should be taken as justifying the sort of dissent within the Church today. It is fallacious to assume that what applies to usury, slavery, or anything else, necessarily also applies to the sexuality issues, married priests, etc. And, as I said, that it for the Church to determine, not us.
 
The answer to this question is this simple,

First the Church still condemns usury!

Second there is a difference between being a “usury” and a “userer”

Third, one may not practice usury, but they may be a usurer! (you can borrow, but can not lend with the condition of usury)

St. Thomas Aquinas lays this out in his Summa Theologica

newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm

Under article four “Whether it is lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury?” He postulates the objection

“It would seem that it is not lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury. For the Apostle says (Romans 1:32) that they “are worthy of death . . . not only they that do” these sins, “but they also that consent to them that do them.” Now he that borrows money under a condition of usury consents in the sin of the usurer, and gives him an occasion of sin. Therefore he sins also.”

To which he responds

“He who borrows for usury does not consent to the usurer’s sin but makes use of it. Nor is it the usurer’s acceptance of usury that pleases him, but his lending, which is good.”

In Christ and Mary,
Kurt
 
In the Parable of the
Talents (Matthew 25), Jesus asked the lazy servant,
“Should you not then have put my money in the bank
so that I could have got it back with interest on my
return?” Clearly, interest itself is not sinful.
Jct: That’s why it’s called a parable, so most people
would get it backward. Jesus said the Kingdom of
Heaven was “like” where the master was a loanshark
demanding his usury so everyone assumes that the
master was Jesus and loansharking is okay!

From my johnturmel.com/poembibl.htm
PARABLE OF THE TALENTS
The parable of Talents in Matt. 25:14,
Depicts a reign where the effects of interest are seen.
"The Kingdom that is Heaven is like where a master takes,
A lengthy leave of absence and for foreign lands he makes.
He calls together servants so his wishes they might learn,
“You put my money to good use until I can return.”
According to ability, five talents to the first,
Two golden talents to the next, one talent to the worst.
The first did well in industry, it doubled with five more,
The next did well in his own way and doubled his to four.
The weakest of the servants knew his master to be hard,
Afraid to lose the gold, he buried it out in the yard.
Years later when the master came, he called them to account,
To settle up their debts they had to meet his due amount.
The first one said “I’ve doubled mine. Here’s ten with interest.”
The master said “You’ve done quite well. To that I will attest.”
The second said “You gave me two and with two more, that’s four.”
The master said “I thank you for increasing so my store.”
The third said “Master, we both know, you reap where you don’t sow,
I buried it and here’s what’s yours. I found it didn’t grow.”
The master said “A lazy servant, I do you regard,
You know I reap where I don’t sow, I am a man who’s hard.
You should have put my money with the bank so that I’d get,
My interest when I returned, a failure you’ll regret.
To those who have abundance will be given even more,
From those without abundance will be taken from their store.
So give his talent to the others who now have a heap,
And throw him into alley where men gnash their teeth and weep.” "

PARABLE OF THE MINAS
The parable of minas in St. Luke 19, 11,
Has servant once again rejecting interest in heaven.
Again, the servant did remit the mina he received,
Again, the master did invoke the law which he believed:
"To those who have abundance will be given even more,
From those without abundance will be taken from their store.
The penalty the servant paid for his audacity.
The master ordered to the guards: “Slay him in front of me.” "
MISINTERPRETATIONS
Because of false interpretations that say he approves,
The taking of the usury, his words still make the news.
That usury’s okay is one interpretation claimed,
The master must be Christ since Heaven is the Kingdom named.
But does this sound like our reward if faith in him we keep?
And who are those in alley where men gnash their teeth and weep?

SHOULD TALENTS MULTIPLY?
Are they the lazy who have met a Christ Lord they should fear?
Has he made punishment for laziness so crystal clear?
Some say our duty is to make our talents multiply.
And so the lazy servant justly was condemned to die.
But if the talents represent the traits of human kind,
How could such talent be transferred to other servant’s mind?
Did servant with the greatest talents who received one more,
Begin to play the other’s flute, begin to write a score?
The physical transferral of the talents must imply,
The talents represent real money. That we can’t deny.

WHAT HEAVEN IS
If you were to be asked what for you would be heavenly?
There’d be no executions and no alleys, certainly…

SERVANTS’ REVOLUTION
But why did servants bury gold when putting it with banks,
Would pay their master’s interest and also gain his thanks?
All that the servants had to do to be the laziest,
Was bank the money and let others pay the interest.
And with this laziest of ways to satisfy the debt,
We must consider what they risked their lives to try to get…

PARABLES ARE REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
So interest prevents a heaven here on earth for man,
It is the cause of poverty and death since time began.
These monetary parables transmit the strategy,
That Jesus offered us to use to fight debt slavery:
One gives to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, all his principal,
But no demand for interest, not even minimal.
This is the revolutionary tactic Christ designed.
It is the tactic that one day a righteous court might find.
In Timothy I, 6 verse 6, though some may say it’s moot,
“The love of money is of many kinds of sin the root.
For those who covet money have been lured right off the trail,
And pierce themselves with many griefs, their lot in life to fail.”
The only reason men love money is because it grows,
Without the need to earn it. It’s a free ride they suppose…

Both servants would not serve the money that they had been lent,
Both suffered punishment as if the money they had been spent.
They could have put it with the banks and caused him no alarm,
But each accepted consequence of doing him no harm.

Note that Jesus’s definition of interest is the most cited quote in scripture, 7 times!
“To those who have abundance will be given even more,
From those without abundance will be taken from their store.”
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That’s what he was fighting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top