Usury

[Awake]

From the first council of Nicea:
Canon 17:

Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, “He has not given his money upon usury,” and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre’s sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.

How does this differ from the modern day concept of investing?

 

[DavidFilmer]

How does this differ from the modern day concept of investing?

Well, for starters, Canon 17 applies only to those who are “enrolled among the Clergy” who lend their personal funds.

Furthermore, investment has nothing to do with charging interest (either excessive or fair), which is what ‘usury’ is. In investment, a person buys a stake in some commodity or enterprise, and profits (or looses) if the investment succeeds (or fails).

Jesus based his “parable of the talents” on the concept of investing, which is portrayed as a Good Thing (Matthew 25:14-30).

 

[Awake]

Well, for starters, Canon 17 applies only to those who are “enrolled among the Clergy” who lend their personal funds.

So then is it wrong for members of the clergy or parishes to have bank accounts or other investments?

Furthermore, investment has nothing to do with charging interest (either excessive or fair), which is what ‘usury’ is. In investment, a person buys a stake in some commodity or enterprise, and profits (or looses) if the investment succeeds (or fails).

To be honest, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.

My savings accounts pays 2% interest. The bank makes money by lending out my money to other people at 5% interest. (I am happy with this because it saves me the legwork and paperwork of loaning money directly to other people.)

 

[DavidFilmer]

So then is it wrong for members of the clergy or parishes to have bank accounts or other investments?

Usury is the charging of excessive interest, not being paid interest. I suppose if “loan sharks” (who do practice usury) also offered savings accounts, it would be immoral for anyone (clergy or otherwise) to “invest” there, even if the rate of return was high. But, AFAIK, loan sharks don’t offer savings accounts.

People who practice usury prey on the desperation of poor people.

My savings accounts pays 2% interest. The bank makes money by lending out my money to other people at 5% interest.

So the bank’s profit margin is 3%. That’s much lower than most business operations (which are typically 10-15%).

Jesus never condemned banks nor fair rates of interest. In the parable I cited, he criticized the lazy servant who failed to even invest the funds with a bank for interest:

Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? (Matthew 25:27)

 

[Awake]

Usury is the charging of excessive interest, not being paid interest. I suppose if “loan sharks” (who do practice usury) also offered savings accounts, it would be immoral for anyone (clergy or otherwise) to “invest” there, even if the rate of return was high. But, AFAIK, loan sharks don’t offer savings accounts.

The canon from the first Council of Nicaea doesn’t seem to make this distinction. It would appear that charging any interest is considered immoral. It is very unclear of what is considered *excessive *interest. Is it 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? It seems to be very subjective.

Jesus never condemned banks nor fair rates of interest. In the parable I cited, he criticized the lazy servant who failed to even invest the funds with a bank for interest:

True.

 

[yinekka]

This article *The Red Herring Of Usury *from This Rock September 1997 might be of help.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea3.asp

 

[DavidFilmer]

The canon from the first Council of Nicaea doesn’t seem to make this distinction. It would appear that charging any interest is considered immoral.

I see nothing the Council’s writings which categorically condemns interest.

It is very unclear of what is considered *excessive *interest. Is it 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? It seems to be very subjective.

And, of course, it is *absolutely *subjective. It is relative to the norms of society. It is not for the Church to put a specific (and doctrinal) numeric value on the acceptable rate of interest. The specific value of this number is surely not part of the Deposit of Faith. But the Church can insist that interest be fair, in consideration to societal norms. This type of teaching is nothing new (the teaching regarding capital punishment comes to mind as a parallel example).