B
bacon_man
Guest
What is ursary? Des it still apply? by the definition, would banking or credit cards be sinful? I mean, there lending money, are they sinful? Explain ursary please.
- Status
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Usery is charging a fee on loans (interest). It is not a sin any longer. It was a sin in lsreal between Jews before Christ. It was to prevent slavery between Jews(IMO) see the old laws on Jewish bankruptcy as a reference. Because usery (debt) is no longer associated with making slaves it is not a moral issue. Immoral usery was practiced in part of the US between the 1850- ~1920 look up company stores. Jesus fulfilled the old law and thus replaced it. Today if you loan as you would borrow then you comply with the new covenent
hope that explains it
B
bacon_man
Guest
So for instance, if my brother wanted to borrow some money from me, and I gave it to him, would it be wrong for me to expect a little more back for him using my money? Like a dollar?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
You must loan as you borrow, if you do not pay usery you should not charge usery. If you pay usery of 10% then you can charge usery of 10%. The comandment is to to “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”
B
bacon_man
Guest
So does that mean I can’t charge anything? I dont really understand what your saying.
T
thistle
Guest
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It’s usury if you are getting a guaranteed return for no risk, like a bank account.
The Church doesn’t say it is a sin any longer, the views on usury changed around the time of the reformation, at the instigation, largely, of Calvin.
There is some question of whether this was a good thing - not as controversial as gay issues or women priests, but likely more relevant to most people. It has produced an economic system that requires infinite growth.
If it is your brother in law, ask yourself this - should you just loan him the money? Does he really need some help? Would that not be the Christian thing to do? Do we charge money to people who are in need? If it is a business venture, would you be lending or investing - investing is not usury if you share the risk.
In some places there are laws about individuals charging interest, you might want to look into that. Also, how the interest is applied makes a big difference.
The Church doesn’t say it is a sin any longer, the views on usury changed around the time of the reformation, at the instigation, largely, of Calvin.
There is some question of whether this was a good thing - not as controversial as gay issues or women priests, but likely more relevant to most people. It has produced an economic system that requires infinite growth.
If it is your brother in law, ask yourself this - should you just loan him the money? Does he really need some help? Would that not be the Christian thing to do? Do we charge money to people who are in need? If it is a business venture, would you be lending or investing - investing is not usury if you share the risk.
In some places there are laws about individuals charging interest, you might want to look into that. Also, how the interest is applied makes a big difference.
F
friarjamesosf
Guest
Usery is charging a fee on loans (interest). It is not a sin any longer. It was a sin in lsreal between Jews before Christ. It was to prevent slavery between Jews(IMO) see the old laws on Jewish bankruptcy as a reference. Because usery (debt) is no longer associated with making slaves it is not a moral issue. Immoral usery was practiced in part of the US between the 1850- ~1920 look up company stores. Jesus fulfilled the old law and thus replaced it.
How do you understand Matt 5:17-20 in light of your comment about “replacing the old law?” And how would you explain the teaching and use of the 10 Commandments if Jesus replaced them.
Just some random thoughts.
Pax et Bonum!
F
friarjamesosf
Guest
Jesus did indeed speak of lending - and in his teaching, he said we should lend to one in need without expecting** anything** back, (which I guess “anything” includes the principle itself…)
In the day when states had Usury Laws on the books (most probably still do) the understanding of usury was NOT just charging interest on a loan - though that was part of it - but, it was the charging of EXCESSIVE interest on a loan that was included – so, the idea would be to loan at either a 0% interest or a very reasonable rate. If this is an acceptible explanation, I think it would be fair to say that Banks Loans per se are not sinful — although one might well make a good argument that credit cards are!!!
Pax et Bonum
S
SHW
Guest
Luke 19:23
Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
Reasonable interest is not usury according to Jesus.
Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
Reasonable interest is not usury according to Jesus.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
We have to be careful as to whether you speak of the 10 commandments (though they are not 10) as given to Moses or the Mosaic Laws as in Leviticus. The laws as listed in Leviticus are fulfilled and replaced see Mark 12:28, and Luke 10:25. The 10 commandments are not replaced because the new commandments encompass them so they remain in new form.How do you understand Matt 5:17-20 in light of your comment about “replacing the old law?” And how would you explain the teaching and use of the 10 Commandments if Jesus replaced them.
Just some random thoughts.
Pax et Bonum!
I see no base to restrict usury to “excessive” but note how you define “excessive” (Mark 12:28, and Luke 10:25). Lending at rates which you borrow at in within the new commandments, lending at rates you would not borrow at is not within the new commandments .Jesus did indeed speak of lending - and in his teaching, he said we should lend to one in need without expecting** anything** back, (which I guess “anything” includes the principle itself…)
In the day when states had Usury Laws on the books (most probably still do) the understanding of usury was NOT just charging interest on a loan - though that was part of it - but, it was the charging of EXCESSIVE interest on a loan that was included – so, the idea would be to loan at either a 0% interest or a very reasonable rate. If this s an acceptable explanation, I think it would be fair to say that Banks Loans per se are not sinful — although one might well make a good argument that credit cards are!!!
Pax et Bonum
hope that helps
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
There are two types of usury:
The moral law is unchanging.
The moral truth about the immorality of usury has not changed.
- Charging excessive interest. This type is not intrinsically evil, but is a matter of degree.
- A type of institutionalized theft. This type of usury is intrinsically evil, since it is a type of theft.
The moral law is unchanging.
The moral truth about the immorality of usury has not changed.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
There is some really interesting stuff from good sources about usury and religion around, if you search on the internet. There are a lot of questions that apply to the way our banking and economic system is run. Some is Christian, some Muslim, some more secular, but well worth looking at.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
See here:
I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.
II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.
I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.
II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.
Y
yablabo
Guest
Usury is solemnly defined in the Fifth Lateran Council as “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.” It is stated that usury is against divine law in several Ecumenical Councils (which means on the authority of God and that it can never change).
Here are some quotes from the Ecumenical Councils for you:
The Third Lateran Council
Canons
Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omitting other business, practise usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.
The Second Council of Lyons
Constitutions II
On usury 26.
Wishing to close up the abyss of usury, which devours souls and swallows up property, we order under threat of the divine malediction that the constitution of the Lateran council against usurers be inviolably observed.
Since the less convenient it is for usurers to lend, the more their freedom to practise usury is curtailed, we ordain by this general constitution as follows.
Neither a college, nor other community, nor an individual person, of whatever dignity, condition or status, may permit those foreigners and others not originating from their territories, who practise usury or wish to do so, to rent houses for that purpose or to occupy rented houses or to live elsewhere.
Nobody is to let houses to them for usury, nor grant them houses under any other title.
If the sum owing from usury is openly known, we wish this sum always to be expressed in the pledge, if the amount is not clearly known, the sum is to be determined by the receiver of the pledge.
Nobody is to assist at the wills of notorious usurers or hear their confessions or absolve them, unless they have made restitution for their usury or have given a fitting guarantee, as far as they can, as described above.
The Council of Vienne
Decrees
We therefore decree that in cases concerning elections, postulations, or provisions, concerning dignities, parsonages, offices, canonries, prebends or any other church benefices, concerning tithes, even when those obliged to pay them have been admonished and can be corrected by ecclesiastical censure, and concerning matrimony or usury and anything connected with it, that a simple, easy process shall be valid without the noise and rhetoric of a court of justice.
Serious suggestions have been made to us that communities in certain places, to the divine displeasure and injury of the neighbour, in violation of both divine and human law, approve of usury. By their statutes, sometimes confirmed by oath, they not only grant that usury may be demanded and paid, but deliberately compel debtors to pay it.
We, therefore, wishing to get rid of these pernicious practices, decree with the approval of the sacred council that all the magistrates, captains, rulers, consuls, judges, counsellors or any other officials of these communities who presume in the future to make, write or dictate such statutes, or knowingly decide that usury be paid or, if paid, that it be not fully and freely restored when claimed, incur the sentence of excommunication.
Furthermore, since money-lenders for the most part enter into usurious contracts so frequently with secrecy and guile that they can be convicted only with difficulty, we decree that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to open their account books, when there is question of usury.
If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy.
They sometimes meddle with settlements involving usury or unjust acquisition and the restitution to be made.
The Council of Basel
Union with Greeks, Conversion of Pagans
But if his goods were acquired by usury or illicit dealings, and the persons to whom restitution ought to be made are known, it is absolutely necessary that this restitution be made, since** the sin is not forgiven unless the illegal object is restored**.
The Fifth Lateran Council
On Reforms and the Pragmatic Sanction
For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan.
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.
We commend the zeal for justice displayed by the former group, which desires to prevent the opening up of the chasm of usury, as well as the love of piety and truth shown by the latter group, which wishes to aid the poor, and indeed the earnestness of both sides.
– Nicole
Y
yablabo
Guest
Since the Church has solemnly spoken in Ecumenical Councils otherwise, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve taken the parable out of context. In St. Luke’s Gospel it is written: (Luke ch. 19 v 20-23)
And another came, saying: Lord, behold here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin; For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up what thou didst not lay down, and thou reapest that which thou didst not sow. He saith to him: Out of thy own mouth I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping that which I did not sow: And why then didst thou not give my money into the bank, that at my coming, I might have exacted it with usury?
I think the only logical way to understand this is using what the Church teaches on usury. One can see the servant tells the master that he believed him to exact money by immoral means. So the master finds fault with the servant as if saying, if that is what you truly believed, then why did you not act as such?
This is not to say that Christ did not consider a reasonable interest to be usury since the Church teaches solemnly that when a thing which produces nothing is used to make a profit or gain without work, expense or risk it is usury. Christ does not contradict the Church and the Church does not contradict Christ.
– Nicole
S
SHW
Guest
I see what you mean. I singled out a tree instead of looking at the whole forest.
Thank you for correcting me. Much appreciated. The DRB states “usury” instead of “interest.” The RSV translates it as “interest.” It is much easier to understand the parable’s message using the DRB translation. “Austerity” can easily lead a person into the sin of “usury.”
My point was that reasonable interest is not usury because there is always some risk involved when you lend money, especially if no collateral is pledged.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Hmm, what about a savings account? I receive (dismal) interest on my savings account, because the bank lends out the money. But I am at no risk, since the bank and the government both guarantee the account. I suppose the back could go under and anarchy reign in the nation, but I’m not sure I’d count that as a real risk.
S
SHW
Guest
I think the banks these days lend mostly non-existent money (money they create out of nothing).
Anarchy is a possibility in the world today including the USA, but when and if that happens, our paper money will probably not be worth anything anyway.“Dismal” interest is not usury. It isn’t even “reasonable.”
We could all start putting our money between the box springs and the mattresses or even dig a hole in the back yard, if we have one, and bury the money there in a water-proof vermin-proof box if we are concerned about banks being usurious. I’m too lazy to do this. 
This country was built upon Protestant capitalistic “ideals” concerning money and finance.
- Status