C
Chrish1975
Guest
In the Middle Ages Usury was against the teachings of the Catholic Church. What is the rule today and can someone list the actual canon law numbers that discuss it?
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Irregardless we have to follow civil law. And likewise, we have to work with the current financial system.
We are not forced to tithe in the Church either. The Church bought properties to be used for the good of its members – and the world, and was not able to purchase through a private contract. So the Church has to live and deal with the contemporary modern world.
We are not forced to tithe in the Church either. The Church bought properties to be used for the good of its members – and the world, and was not able to purchase through a private contract. So the Church has to live and deal with the contemporary modern world.
C
Chrish1975
Guest
Pious Muslim don’t follow the new World Order system. Why should Catholics?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
That depends on what is meant by usury. It was once considered that the taking of any interest on a loan was usury. The Church, and Catholic merchants, used to engage in complex contracts that avoided the paying of interest as strictly defined.
That this has changed is evident from the two canons that do mention interest, which allow for material cooperation with the practice:
While usury today may mean lending at an onerous, exhorbitant, or predatory rate, I’m not sure that even the payday loan places are always guilty of sin if the borrower is well-informed and able to decide rationally.
That this has changed is evident from the two canons that do mention interest, which allow for material cooperation with the practice:
Today the Church’s traditional teaching against usury is interpreted much more narrowly, and the Church itself has ceded much of the discussion on this matter to economists.
While usury today may mean lending at an onerous, exhorbitant, or predatory rate, I’m not sure that even the payday loan places are always guilty of sin if the borrower is well-informed and able to decide rationally.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
I am not going to debate you. I will just state facts.Pious Muslim don’t follow the new World Order system. Why should Catholics?
The so-called New World Order system is a Eurocentric system based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. All Moslems believe in an entirely different Creed and behave according to it. Although Islam has elements of Judaism and Christianity, its beliefs are completly different from either religion.
S
Scottgun
Guest
From the (relatively recent) Compendium of the Catechism:
508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?
2408-2413
2453-2455
Above all, the seventh commandment forbids theft, which is the taking or using of another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. This can be done also by paying unjust wages; by speculation on the value of goods in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; or by the forgery of checks or invoices. Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property ; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.
Usury is still a sin. Not all interest on a loan is usury.
508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?
2408-2413
2453-2455
Above all, the seventh commandment forbids theft, which is the taking or using of another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. This can be done also by paying unjust wages; by speculation on the value of goods in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; or by the forgery of checks or invoices. Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property ; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.
Usury is still a sin. Not all interest on a loan is usury.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Usury is still a sin, it’s just what constitutes usury that has changed. There is a ton of stuff about finance and stuff like this online if you look for it. Unless you want information about fractional reserve banking and if it is morally licit. If anyone has thoughts on that please respond. 
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I know of some people who studied fractionizing…every check we write out, back in 2004, the bank would get $17 back on it. On a mortgage loan, let’s say about $200k, the bank with fractionalizing and pay backs, makes about over a million it, may be even close to $3 million.
It is part of the central bank’s means of getting more money.
Integrity of money is all based on you and your ability to work and pay your bills…and on time. So some people say, it is not so much about usury, as it us, human beings, who are the source of the value of money.
The central banking is akin to enslaving us to money. The first bail out of October 2008 actually went to the foreign based central banking system while the American populace was dealing with the race baiting 2008 presidential election.
I would point back to the American populace, rather than usury being an issue. I would say that having access to birth control for single women, and the perception that America is a money making machine, – rather than a country with cohesive, humane values, was the motivating source for this election’s outcome, immorality and materilaism.
It is part of the central bank’s means of getting more money.
Integrity of money is all based on you and your ability to work and pay your bills…and on time. So some people say, it is not so much about usury, as it us, human beings, who are the source of the value of money.
The central banking is akin to enslaving us to money. The first bail out of October 2008 actually went to the foreign based central banking system while the American populace was dealing with the race baiting 2008 presidential election.
I would point back to the American populace, rather than usury being an issue. I would say that having access to birth control for single women, and the perception that America is a money making machine, – rather than a country with cohesive, humane values, was the motivating source for this election’s outcome, immorality and materilaism.
T
tafan
Guest
Usury is still a sin. IMO, The Church has been woefully deficient in explaining clearly what usury is in our modern society. It is an very critical from a point of view of social justice, as there are many usurious practices prevalent today which take advantage of the poor, or the financially troubled (eg payday loan services, CC penalty rates, pawn shops). The silence is inexplicable IMO.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Usury is and always has been a sin. Over the centuries, however, the economy has changed. Nowadays, with the widespread use of money rather than barter, charging a reasonable rate of interest doesn’t automatically hurt poor people as it used to.
In other words, the sin of usury hasn’t changed. Circumstances have changed so that some actions (some instances of charging interest) are no longer usurious.
In other words, the sin of usury hasn’t changed. Circumstances have changed so that some actions (some instances of charging interest) are no longer usurious.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
To be sure, though, Christians are still generally forbidden fom lending their money at interest, especially to the poor or needy: we are to lend, and lend liberally, but not “at a price” or simply in order to extract a profit from it.
From the days of Saint Thomas at least, it was the opinion of moral theologians that it was the act of lending to those in need at a price (i.e., usury) that was a sin or at least sinful; not the debtor’s availing him or herself of the monies thus borrowed.
From the days of Saint Thomas at least, it was the opinion of moral theologians that it was the act of lending to those in need at a price (i.e., usury) that was a sin or at least sinful; not the debtor’s availing him or herself of the monies thus borrowed.
K
KingofthePauper
Guest
Jct: No one can escape Jesus’s direct commandment on interest on money in the Gospel of Thomas 95! It’s word for word identical to Koran Chapter 2, 275 so Mohammed repeated his prophet Jesus’s words exactly too. And of course, it’s the same as Nehemiah 5:10 for Hebrews too! That some slow-tech popes from past millennia decided to cut it out doesn’t mean it really doesn’t count? When it’s the same basic commandment in all 3 faiths, no loansharking, no mort-gaging, no death-gambling, you can bet it took a lot of work for make the 3 faiths forget what they are united in and be distracted by what they are not! And Bhudda and other great faith founders castigated loansharking too.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The Fifth Lateran Council explained what usury really is:
“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.”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm
Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.
As an aside, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it was not a sin to borrow under condition of usury.
newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm#article4
“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.”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm
Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.
As an aside, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it was not a sin to borrow under condition of usury.
newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm#article4
G
Godfollower
Guest
The Gospel of Thomas? Not a canonical work.
Nehemiah 5:10 calls for forgiving the original debt – not just interest on it – in the context of Nehemiah leading the third wave of exiles back to Jerusalem. So, if you were right about your interpretation of it, it would require lenders to expect no repayment of debt or principal. That is not God’s law.
And we all agree that loansharking is immoral. That’s not the same as a bank charging reasonable interest rates in a modern economy.
K
KingofthePauper
Guest
Genesis 315: The Fifth Lateran Council explained what usury really is:
“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.”
Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.
Jct: It doesn’t matter how productive your loan, it didn’t breed money for you to pay the 11th chip. The only way for you to obtain the 11th token to get out of your debt is to get it from your competitor in the mort-gage death-gamble created by the demand for more than was loaned and exists. They won’t accept your produce for the interest, they want money. So the Lateran Council came up with a definition that allows the death and slavery of some borrowers. Need I say more?
“As an aside, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it was not a sin to borrow under condition of usury. newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm#article4 “
Jct: Then Mr. Aquinas doesn’t think it’s a sin to inflict the deathgamble on one’s neighbors and Jesus did. After all, Jesus as pretty clear and who cares what his interpreters think when they disagree.
Godfollower: Nehemiah 5:10 calls for forgiving the original debt – not just interest on it – in the context of Nehemiah leading the third wave of exiles back to Jerusalem. So, if you were right about your interpretation of it, it would require lenders to expect no repayment of debt or principal. That is not God’s law.
Jct: I agree with you so I must be pretty stupid if what you said I think is what I really think. Nehemiah said “let the exacting of usury stop.” And “give them back what you have seized for that interest.” Because, if you seized the principal of your loaned cows back, they were your cows. No one says you shouldn’t hope for your principal back. Mohammed who better knew Jesus than most Christian preachers promised lenders their capital sums back but he too had the same post-script to the Thomas 95 Commandment:
Jesus said: If you have money, do not lend it out at interest. Better you should lend it someone who can’t pay you back!” Mohammed added: if only you knew… So Jesus and Mohammed advised lending and forgetting and only hoping the borrower has success enough to repay but if you lend it to a loser who can’t pay you back, a widow and orphans,that’s even better. But the hope to have it returned is inherent in Paul Corr II: 8:14. Your abundance now, spare seeds, should at the present time supply his want to plant them so that later his abundance of seeds may be a supply for your want to plant them. So lend to the down while you’re up in the hope the up will lend to you if you end up down. But lend and don’t care because if everyone’s going to help you back, you cares if you get it back from one particular borrower? Social Credit is Friendly Credit is Christian Credit.
PS I belonged to the Social Credit Party and when they went off 0% usury to 6% and ejected me, I founded the Christian Credit Party until the Abolitionist (usurious debt slavery) party.
“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.”
Therefore, you can charge interest to account for risk, expense, and work and for productive loans.
Jct: It doesn’t matter how productive your loan, it didn’t breed money for you to pay the 11th chip. The only way for you to obtain the 11th token to get out of your debt is to get it from your competitor in the mort-gage death-gamble created by the demand for more than was loaned and exists. They won’t accept your produce for the interest, they want money. So the Lateran Council came up with a definition that allows the death and slavery of some borrowers. Need I say more?
“As an aside, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it was not a sin to borrow under condition of usury. newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm#article4 “
Jct: Then Mr. Aquinas doesn’t think it’s a sin to inflict the deathgamble on one’s neighbors and Jesus did. After all, Jesus as pretty clear and who cares what his interpreters think when they disagree.
Godfollower: Nehemiah 5:10 calls for forgiving the original debt – not just interest on it – in the context of Nehemiah leading the third wave of exiles back to Jerusalem. So, if you were right about your interpretation of it, it would require lenders to expect no repayment of debt or principal. That is not God’s law.
Jct: I agree with you so I must be pretty stupid if what you said I think is what I really think. Nehemiah said “let the exacting of usury stop.” And “give them back what you have seized for that interest.” Because, if you seized the principal of your loaned cows back, they were your cows. No one says you shouldn’t hope for your principal back. Mohammed who better knew Jesus than most Christian preachers promised lenders their capital sums back but he too had the same post-script to the Thomas 95 Commandment:
Jesus said: If you have money, do not lend it out at interest. Better you should lend it someone who can’t pay you back!” Mohammed added: if only you knew… So Jesus and Mohammed advised lending and forgetting and only hoping the borrower has success enough to repay but if you lend it to a loser who can’t pay you back, a widow and orphans,that’s even better. But the hope to have it returned is inherent in Paul Corr II: 8:14. Your abundance now, spare seeds, should at the present time supply his want to plant them so that later his abundance of seeds may be a supply for your want to plant them. So lend to the down while you’re up in the hope the up will lend to you if you end up down. But lend and don’t care because if everyone’s going to help you back, you cares if you get it back from one particular borrower? Social Credit is Friendly Credit is Christian Credit.
PS I belonged to the Social Credit Party and when they went off 0% usury to 6% and ejected me, I founded the Christian Credit Party until the Abolitionist (usurious debt slavery) party.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
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.
Fractionalizing is part of our modern form of finance. For a $200,000 mortgage, based on your ability to work and pay off your bills, the banks are paid over time of mortgage, about $1.3 million. This money is used to fund your credit cards.
No one person has a handle on our financial system. Nobody truly understands the full scope of it. To say that charging interest on a credit card…and the amounts they were charging Americans with one missed payment, were a terrible injustice…is a definite means of enslavement, that only the top honchos know its impact.
Actually, the biggest problem is the transnational corporations who are accountable to nobody, whose profits far, far, far exceed the combined income of low and middle class Americans…
Instead, what we are seeing is the media and those in some government leadership going after individual, and accountable, wealthy and white American men, who many times are humane and philanthropic. They are the bogey men today and it is class warfare.
I wish the Church would begin to speak out more against class warfare and the spins going about. When power takes over, truth is the first casualty…a statement John Paul II spoke about in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.
Our present financial system based on the international bank, I think, is coming before God’s judgment.
Fractionalizing is part of our modern form of finance. For a $200,000 mortgage, based on your ability to work and pay off your bills, the banks are paid over time of mortgage, about $1.3 million. This money is used to fund your credit cards.
No one person has a handle on our financial system. Nobody truly understands the full scope of it. To say that charging interest on a credit card…and the amounts they were charging Americans with one missed payment, were a terrible injustice…is a definite means of enslavement, that only the top honchos know its impact.
Actually, the biggest problem is the transnational corporations who are accountable to nobody, whose profits far, far, far exceed the combined income of low and middle class Americans…
Instead, what we are seeing is the media and those in some government leadership going after individual, and accountable, wealthy and white American men, who many times are humane and philanthropic. They are the bogey men today and it is class warfare.
I wish the Church would begin to speak out more against class warfare and the spins going about. When power takes over, truth is the first casualty…a statement John Paul II spoke about in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.
Our present financial system based on the international bank, I think, is coming before God’s judgment.
K
KingofthePauper
Guest
No one person has a handle on our financial system. Nobody truly understands the full scope of it.
Jct: Sorry but the banking systems engineer understands the full scope of it. What is it about the johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm blueprint for how poker chips work that you find so difficult to grasp? No casinos near you where you can go study interest-free unemployment-free inflation-free tokens?
Jct: Sorry but the banking systems engineer understands the full scope of it. What is it about the johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm blueprint for how poker chips work that you find so difficult to grasp? No casinos near you where you can go study interest-free unemployment-free inflation-free tokens?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
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.
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.
M
manualman
Guest
Here’s how I understand it. A LONG time ago, economies ran primarily on barter and cash was simply a place to park surplus wealth until one decided what to do with it. Such economies really did not have inflation, so a fixed amount of money tended to have the same actual value before or after a 5 year period went by. In such a system, usury was simple to define: charging any interest is usury.
As economics changed from agricultural production and barter and cash became the medium of transaction, kings began to simply mint more money supply whenever they overspent (as kings in EVERY age are wont to do). This created the problem of inflation. As economics became more and more complex and inflation ebbed and flowed over time, it became REALLY hard to draw the line between risk compensation and usury. IMO, the church simply realized that it lacked the competence to draw that line and passed the buck to the laity. 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.
IMO, credit card issuers are mostly usurers. Mortgage lenders mostly are not (since 2009, anyways). Car lenders? Some of both. Can I deliver a lawyer-proof defense of how I came to these conclusions? Nope.
As economics changed from agricultural production and barter and cash became the medium of transaction, kings began to simply mint more money supply whenever they overspent (as kings in EVERY age are wont to do). This created the problem of inflation. As economics became more and more complex and inflation ebbed and flowed over time, it became REALLY hard to draw the line between risk compensation and usury. IMO, the church simply realized that it lacked the competence to draw that line and passed the buck to the laity. 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.
IMO, credit card issuers are mostly usurers. Mortgage lenders mostly are not (since 2009, anyways). Car lenders? Some of both. Can I deliver a lawyer-proof defense of how I came to these conclusions? Nope.
S
sw85
Guest
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.
- Status