Usury in Catholic Canon Law

[curlycool89]

Right. In other words, asset-recourse lending is not usury in the moral sense, while person-recourse lending is.

When I finance the purchase of a home, the bank is a co-owner of the house with me. By paying principal, I am slowly, bit by bit, buying the house from them. By paying interest, I am paying them rent for my use of that portion of the house which they own. This is not usury and therefore not illegal.

I think that’s a fairly good analogy actually.

It’s the same when you purchase something with a credit card. You are “paying them” principle for the good itself, and the interest is like a “service fee” for what it costs to run the system plus a bit of profit (profit is not itself intrinsically immoral).

And so the line for usury is when you are paying more then is justified by “overhead + profit” (overhead could conceivably include such things as R&D too). Of course, where the line is between “profit” and “highway robbery” is highly ambiguous and can depend on psychological factors (as well as economic and risk factors), such as “luxury brands”.

In layman’s terms, it’s really hard to know where usury lies. We can probably say that a 1% interest rate is not, but 100% would most likely be. Our parent’s generation financed mortgages in the high 10s% (in the 80s), so I don’t think you could ever make a case for any rate under 10% counting as usury (which has been the norm the past 2 decades).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes…Gospel of St. Thomas is not public revelation. I read some where that it was for private reading but have not re-located the source.

Any book is free fro private reading. The Church no longer keeps an index of forbidden works.

Saying that though. The Gospel of Thomas is in no way inspired by God as the Holy Bible is. I even believe that there are problematic parts of the Gospel of Thomas where it actually goes against what is revealed in the Holy Bible.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Friar…some where some place some how…I came across a brief that said St Thomas was private revelation, not public…and misinterpreted as OK for private reading… I am not drawn at all to gnostic readings, however…not at all.

 

[KingofthePauper]

You can go back to the foundation of the banking system, but transactions are done in a fraction of as second.
There is no financial wizard who can sit back and then dictate the running of international finance.
And casino machines are computerized, built on the theory of probability, and the gamblers may win a few times, in the end the casino makes the profit.

Jct: Three off-topic responses mean you miss my point or you can’t answer it.
3) Yes, casino machines are set to pay back 97 or 98% of your money and makes a profit in the long run but they could be set to break even, or in a heaven of the future, pay out 101 or 102. So the odds of a game can be set. So what?

1. Yes, computers make the posting of transactions faster, so how is that relevant to our insufficiency of money (poverty)?
2. No financial wizard can dictate the running of intl finance? Tha’ts the problem, dolts and economists do! I want rules to finance (law) to be programmed, not dictated. That you think I want to spend my life dictating financial righteousness rather than debug it once and retire is your misconception. A real financial wizard fixes it so it runs itself after that. And please, don’t to speak for or tell us what a financial wizard can do. I’ve been called the Wizard of Odds as well as Great Canadian Gambler or TajProfessor.

 

[KingofthePauper]

The principle that charging interest for profit in excess of the risk compensation is immoral remains true to this day. Where the line between just compensation and usury lies is downright hard to say.
Jct: “If you have money, do not lend it out at interest in excess of the risk compensation,” is not what Thomas 95 says. It says: Jesus said: “If you have money do not lend it out at interest.” But if Manuelman says Jesus was wrong, who are we to argue?

 

[KingofthePauper]

“Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.”
sw85: Right. In other words, asset-recourse lending is not usury in the moral sense, while person-recourse lending is.
Jct: “If you have money, do not lend it out at interest but to accont for risk, expense, work and productive loans,” isn’t what Jesus said. He didn’t say it was okay to foreclose on one of 10 productive borrowers who fail. He said “Do not lend it at interest.” But if sw85 puts his money out at interest because Jesus was wrong, who are we to argue?

sw85: By paying interest, I am paying them rent for my use of that portion of the house which they own. This is not usury and therefore not illegal
Jct: If you say so, but I don’t expect you’ll end up in the same place Jesus and I will, a heaven without interest. Because, of course, if loansharking isn’t a sin on earth, it won’t be a sin in your kind of heaven, only in ours.

 

[KingofthePauper]

curlycool89: so the line for usury is when you are paying more then is justified by “overhead + profit”…
Jct: So Curly thinks Jesus was wrong when he said there was no justifiable interest on money?

CC89: Of course, where the line is between “profit” and “highway robbery” is highly ambiguous… it’s really hard to know where usury lies.
Jct: So Curly knows Jesus was wrong though he can’t himself define the line where Jesus’s condemnation no longer applies.

CC89: “The Gospel of Thomas is in no way inspired by God as the Holy Bible is.”
Jct: Or the clergy-okayed texts not cut out of the Holy Bible are in no way inspired by God as the Gospel of Jesus’s brother Thomas.

CC89: I even believe that there are problematic parts of the Gospel of Thomas where it actually goes against what is revealed in the Holy Bible.
Jct: And I’m betting against parts in the “not-quite-Holy” Bible that go against what is revealed by Jesus’s brother Thomas in his Holy Gospel.
Your only condemnation of Thomas is that other low-tech clergy of antiquity were brighter than you so their decision in cutting him out must be righteous. By the way, do you even know the names of these “learned” clergy who censored Thomas’s Gospel that you find so much more trustworthy than Jesus’s own brother himself? And we know for sure that the Gospel of Thomas has not been tampered with like the rest of your “Holy Bible.” Your crew of religious censors even altered where Jesus actually said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” to “forgive us our sins,” making him out to be a sin-fighter when he was really a poverty-fighter. He whipped the usurers, not the sinners. And why would Jesus suggest we pray for God to forgive us when it is promised in Ezekiel that forgiveness is automatic once we repent and do right. Why should we pray for what has been promised? Please God, hope you weren’t lying to Ezekiel when you said you only wanted us to repent and be good to be forgiven. But if it’s not as automatic as you promised to Ezekiel, then let me as to have my sins forgiven again and again and again presuming you were lying to Ezekiel or he was lying to us about what you promised. So you see why the corrupted version of the Lord’s Prayer is so silly? So don’t call the book of corruptions “Holy” and the Gospel rejected by the Book of Corruptions “not holy.” It is the other way around. And the Our Father isn’t the only corruption in some recent bibles. Nehemiah 5:10 has recently been corrupted to drop the words: “Let the exacting of interest stop.” Check for the Bad News in the Good News Bible! Har har har har.

 

[KathleenGee]

Regarding the casinos, check out Quantum Physics, which should explain better than myself, why the casinos are set up to win in the long run. Quantum Physics is the component that makes the computer, which in turn makes the program for the casinos.

Don’t think your logic can overcome these computer programs, and if the casinos afforded us a better chance of winning in the long run, they would not be running at all.

Sharia Law does prohibit usury, but it is very fundamentalist, one dimensional.

Credit cards indeed are a good example of wrongful usury. They are OK for short term needs or to handle when something unforeseen comes up. Mine is at 6% because I have sterling credit and live within my means. I am getting offers to move to another but refuse. I pay off my gas cards every month, and I won’t use them as credit cards for other things.

The Church’s answers to exceptions where usury as you define it, is acceptable and reflects the normal practice of commerce going back to its beginning thousands of years ago, not relevant to the poor man and our response as theists, to treat him with compassion.

Christ inferred to us that He is present in the naked, the starving, the homeless, the imprisoned, those needing burial, those suffering from loneliness. This is not about making a living, but living out the Gospel.

He said His kingdom is not of this world.

The world in His context is really our place to work out our salvation in responding to His Life and responding to Him suffering in the needy. We take our income from our work and commerce, and share it with those in need.

You are mixing two things and it can make somebody angry if you do, and not see the wisdom of Christ’s Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

I won’t read excerpts on materials that are not approved by the Church. I don’t want to waste my time ruminating on half truths and falsehoods.

 

[curlycool89]

curlycool89: so the line for usury is when you are paying more then is justified by “overhead + profit”…
Jct: So Curly thinks Jesus was wrong when he said there was no justifiable interest on money?

CC89: Of course, where the line is between “profit” and “highway robbery” is highly ambiguous… it’s really hard to know where usury lies.
Jct: So Curly knows Jesus was wrong though he can’t himself define the line where Jesus’s condemnation no longer applies.

I really want someone to count how many times I have said these words this month: “This is what happens when someone comes along and doesn’t read the bloody thread”.

As others have mentioned, “usury” as a technical term has changed in meaning since the time of Christ because economics and finance have changed from a barter system to a gold standard to a fiat money system.

And a little FYI, Jesus also said in the Bible that “the labourer deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7). Bankers are labourers too (unless you want to deny that bankers are not actually working), and they deserve to be paid for their service (which is lending of money for personal debt as well as a way to stimulate economic activity). And since Jesus cannot contradict Himself, then these statements must be take to be compatible.

CC89: “The Gospel of Thomas is in no way inspired by God as the Holy Bible is.”
Jct: Or the clergy-okayed texts not cut out of the Holy Bible are in no way inspired by God as the Gospel of Jesus’s brother Thomas.

#1 - I did not say this (please do not attribute false quotes to people, this in itself can be sinful if it raises to the level of slander or calumny). That was said by Friar David, a known consecrated Religious.

CC89: I even believe that there are problematic parts of the Gospel of Thomas where it actually goes against what is revealed in the Holy Bible.
Jct: And I’m betting against parts in the “not-quite-Holy” Bible that go against what is revealed by Jesus’s brother Thomas in his Holy Gospel.
Your only condemnation of Thomas is that other low-tech clergy of antiquity…

Nor did I say this either.

Also, this seems to be nothing more then you trying to rant on your own pet theology. If you are not aware, this forum is not to be used for the promotion of your own theology that is decisively non-Catholic. Forumers have been banned for trying to use CAF as a place to promote their own private blend of theology that is clearly in opposition to Church teachings, and for trying to promote private opinions as Gospel (the so-called “Gospel” of Thomas would count as such, and we actually know that that one is wrong. That’s why we call it Gnostic).

 

[KingofthePauper]

I won’t read excerpts on materials that are not approved by the Church. I don’t want to waste my time ruminating on half truths and falsehoods.

Jct: Yes, we both agree that you have a closed mind.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am open to the truth.

You should take a step back and study St. Ireneaus. He spoke about the heresies of Gnosticism.

You mess with one word of Sacred Scripture, its outcome is bad. Look at what happened to Christianity and the so called Reformation. In the USA alone we have 30 to 40,000 sects all claiming to have the truth of the deposit of faith in Christ. They don’t.

So I do not want to absorb falsehoods in my faith or my understanding of reality.

I do not want Sharia in our land if that is what you are hedging towards. I am a woman and do not want to be reduced either into an economic piece of property.

You talk about economy, profit…look at polygamy and how impoverishing it is to a society as well as degrading to the psychology and wholeness of woman.

Read about St. Hildegard of Bingen and see how she contributed to the economy and well being of society by her knowledge and discoveries and works.

Then look back at the economy of Christ and every day living…the 3 stewards…One buried his talent and did nothing else. Another worked his talent to some profit. And the third steward did excellent in using his talents that they multiplied. That is thinking, working, and rising above carnal indulgence of laziness and selfishness.

John Paul II sounded somewhat anti-West when he first became pope. In time he said that the best economy was based on the free market with a strong moral voice. There are writings on economy going back to the 1400’s by various monks and I can give you the resource later. Accounting as we know it was developed in Italy in the 1400’s.

So what you are witnessing today is a form of the international banking system. And the people making the most insane profits are those belonging to transnational corporations who are faceless and likewise unaccountable to the humane welfare of people.

Transnational corporations is where you should direct your fury. But no Sharia Law. So many are fighting it in Egypt now.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes…Gospel of St. Thomas is not public revelation. I read some where that it was for private reading but have not re-located the source.

Interesting that back in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9612643&highlight=Gospel+of+Thomas#post9612643

you were promoting the idea that the Gospel of Thomas constituted private revelation, but then seemed to recant perhaps, although it was never very clear. What is your position on this?

 

[sw85]

sw85;10080138:

“Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.”
sw85: Right. In other words, asset-recourse lending is not usury in the moral sense, while person-recourse lending is.
Jct: “If you have money, do not lend it out at interest but to accont for risk, expense, work and productive loans,” isn’t what Jesus said. He didn’t say it was okay to foreclose on one of 10 productive borrowers who fail. He said “Do not lend it at interest.” But if sw85 puts his money out at interest because Jesus was wrong, who are we to argue?

sw85: By paying interest, I am paying them rent for my use of that portion of the house which they own. This is not usury and therefore not illegal
Jct: If you say so, but I don’t expect you’ll end up in the same place Jesus and I will, a heaven without interest. Because, of course, if loansharking isn’t a sin on earth, it won’t be a sin in your kind of heaven, only in ours.

First, please familiarize yourself with the quoting interface at CAF. It’s not hard and makes your posts much easier to read.

Second, you are effectively condemning me to Hell over a narrow linguistic squabble concerning whether the payment of interest on asset-recourse loans constitutes usury in the sense condemned in Scripture, when the infallible Magisterium of the Church has already ruled it doesn’t. Now supposing they didn’t call it “interest” but simply “rent,” would this be objectionable? Of course not, because that’s exactly what it is. You are paying them for your use of their share of the property they bought jointly with you. If you want to illicitly read your own prejudices into Scripture like a good little Protestant, be my guest, but the fact that virtually no one anywhere believes what you believe is a good indicator that you’re deeply wrong.

 

[KathleenGee]

Didn’t I say that I was mistaken?..It came up on another…and if you go back on this thread, you will note that the Friar is saying there is no more forbidden books…but as I read a list of approved books and then there was a list that was…and this is what I am not clear about and cannot find…there were books listed that had degree of some inspiration but were not public revelation…and we all know they are not part of the Bible.

And I also said I never read this ‘gospel’ either and had no intention either of ever doing so.

Mr. Noonan… for me, it is nothing personal.

 

[KathleenGee]

KingofthePauper…are you Muslim or fundamentalist Christian??

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…there were books listed that had degree of some inspiration but were not public revelation…and we all know they are not part of the Bible.

I think Catholics would consider what you are referring to to be under the category of “private revelation.”

I continue to be amazed that Catholics would assert that a spurious gnostic text like the Gospel of Thomas would have “some degree of inspiration” or could be used in any way to support a doctrinal position such as this one.

 

[KathleenGee]

David…

You have brought out my mistake several times now.

Let me give you context. I have been a heavy ready for many many years, even having my name in western part of my state for my amount of reading as a child.

I am now in my early 60’s. Reading computer screens is hard and it is also hard for me to go up and down a document rather than with a book, for me to verify. I also read in context.
I have been finding myself reading reading quickly, then going back to re-read what I thought I was reading and was mistaken.

And so my mistake was due to aging and reading, even with glasses.

I have never supported gnostic readings, have no interest in reading them, and do not promote them. I was mistaken by my own physiological limitations, — not intent— of putting this so called St. Thomas gnostic bible in category of private revelation. I have not been able to re-locate it, so assume I mis-read it.

History channel, World Net Daily on line and other non-denominationals, including Mormons are claiming the Catholic Church deliberately is hiding the Gnostic writings to prevent priests from marrying, and so forth.

So to hear that the Catholics are supporting and promoting gnostic writings, including the alleged ones of ST. Thomas are not true.

Can you understand…this is another time you have brought up the same issue.

Likewise, I think it just as dubious Christians claiming Catholics do not use the Bible and are not Christian. Sometimes it is not spoken, but the attitude is there.