- Status
S
SHW
Guest
Many Catholics blamed the “Jews” for Jesus’ death when “sin” was actually the real reason for His death. Perhaps this is also why those “Jewish stereotypes” got started and prevailed.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Jews were prohibited from owning land and the guilds prohibited them from practicing trades. Finance and banking was looked down upon by the European aristocratic elite. Christians had the religious prohibition of lending money at interest. This situation led to rulers turning to Jews for finance and banking. The Jews on the other hand had only money lending and finance to provide them economic prosperity. When the local rulers found themselves in too much financial trouble they often expelled the Jews to avoid their debt. This separate autonomous existence of the Jews, preventing them from integrating into general society was upheld by the various papal edicts, denying the Jew basic civil and legal rights, forcing him to live in ghettos, wear special clothing marking him as a Jew, denying him employment or to employ non Jews or any social interactions with non Jews ( the specious claim is often made on this forum that the Jews kept themselves separate rather than that they were kept separate by anti-Jewish Church edicts). This situation changed some two hundred years ago with Napoleon who allowed European Jews for the first time to receive citizenship in the countries in which they resided and during the 19th Century Jews for the first time began to be allowed to integrate into general society. As part of this process Jews made a major contribution to the formulation of the modern system of international banking and high finance, essential to the full development and expansion of modern international trade.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Chosen People,
I think you are quite right - and centuries of injustices have crippled our minds and hearts towards our Jewish brothers…giving rise to in the last century to Hitler and Hitler immitators.
Thank you for your excellent post.
I think you are quite right - and centuries of injustices have crippled our minds and hearts towards our Jewish brothers…giving rise to in the last century to Hitler and Hitler immitators.
Thank you for your excellent post.
Shalom,
S
SHW
Guest
Shameful to treat people this way. St. Paul, before his conversion to Christianity, (as the Jew Saul of Tarsus) condoned the murders of the early Christians because he also thought that he was pleasing God by doing this (he believed that he was helping to keep the Jewish faith “pure” and “foremost” by condoning the imprisonment and killing of all Christian converts).
Hopefully this will never happen again between Christians and Jews.
Of course, now we have many Muslims who think it is okay to kill all non-Muslims.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I agree.
I have been confused about usury and the Church recently (and since I’m back posting here at CAF…
)But I think catholic.com does a good job at explaining this in an easy to understand way (as it normally does
)The reason that lending money with interest was considered usury in the middle ages is because it was considered “consumable”. Money was either hoarded or spent. So to put interest on loaned money was considered equal to lending a sandwich and requiring two back in return. It puts the original lender in a better position (they have received a profit), and the person who received from the lender in a worse position (they are now in debt to the lender). It reminds me of a quote from St. Ambrose (Ithink it was him) who said that the rich owe the poor. With usury the poor owe the rich. Today, because of capitalism, money is fruitful and not considered consumable, so it isn’t usury to charge interest on lended money today. Even the Vatican has a bank.
But while lending money and charging interest today isn’t considered usury, would keeping money in a bank account be called usury? The Fifth Lateran Council said this about usury: “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"
I’d say no, because the money is producing more money, at the expense of nobody. Otherwise, why would so many Catholics (including the USCCB) have money in banks, and why would the Vatican have one of the largest banks in the world? (and why would Switzerland have so many banks
?)
P
preferanonymous
Guest
“Today, because of capitalism, money is fruitful and not considered consumable, so it isn’t usury to charge interest on lended money today.”
“I’d say no, because the money is producing more money, at the expense of nobody.”
I am not sure if this has been quoted, but I thought I might post what Aquinas had to say in the Summa Theologica:
"I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. On order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.
On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury."
To address the first claim, it would not be true that just because money was fruitful it was still not consumable. Consider anything you buy at the supermarket as examples of that which is fruitful but still consumable. To address the second claim, producing more money would, it might be argued, lessen the value of my money and thus negatively effect my total wealth. In talking with people about usury, I have found that some argue that charging interest based on the use of money is permissible because one is charging based for the profit they would have made if they had invested elsewhere. But how is one supposed to place a value on this? To charge based on this is, it seems to me, to exact a payment based on what does exist. The fact that one might have invested their money elsewhere and got a ‘guaranteed return’ does not seem to me sufficient to justify usury- for if they mean by ‘investment elsewhere’ exacting usury from someone else then their claim would amount to saying ‘usury is okay because in lending to you I give up the ability to commit usury to someone else’. But does this justify usury anymore than ‘abortion should be legal because if you don’t make it legal then I’ll just go somewhere else and get one’ justifies abortion? Both arguments presume the permissibility of the act when it is this that is in question. I think they are both invalid for that reason.
“I’d say no, because the money is producing more money, at the expense of nobody.”
I am not sure if this has been quoted, but I thought I might post what Aquinas had to say in the Summa Theologica:
"I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. On order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.
On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury."
To address the first claim, it would not be true that just because money was fruitful it was still not consumable. Consider anything you buy at the supermarket as examples of that which is fruitful but still consumable. To address the second claim, producing more money would, it might be argued, lessen the value of my money and thus negatively effect my total wealth. In talking with people about usury, I have found that some argue that charging interest based on the use of money is permissible because one is charging based for the profit they would have made if they had invested elsewhere. But how is one supposed to place a value on this? To charge based on this is, it seems to me, to exact a payment based on what does exist. The fact that one might have invested their money elsewhere and got a ‘guaranteed return’ does not seem to me sufficient to justify usury- for if they mean by ‘investment elsewhere’ exacting usury from someone else then their claim would amount to saying ‘usury is okay because in lending to you I give up the ability to commit usury to someone else’. But does this justify usury anymore than ‘abortion should be legal because if you don’t make it legal then I’ll just go somewhere else and get one’ justifies abortion? Both arguments presume the permissibility of the act when it is this that is in question. I think they are both invalid for that reason.
J
John21652
Guest
Do you realise this thread is over two years old?
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Thank you for this link.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Not anymore!
But I have a new question in case anyone is still lurking (or wants to join). (Or maybe I should start a new thread?
)The way I see it, and since Catholic groups are required to invest money according to some canon in the canon law * investing money can’t be all bad, especially considering the fact that the Vatican has a bank. But the two ways I can comprehend that justify interest have problems:
1 way: Because in the modern economy and the endless opportunities of investing money for a profit, when a person lends money to another person (for any reason), they should receive interest, because they are losing a profit for the other person’s sake. After all, many Catholics are actively involved in finance and banking, and they lend to various people, regardless of what they will use their money for.
Another way: Because the modern economy gives endless opportunities for investment, it is right to charge interest when lending money to someone who is using the money with the intention of making a profit. However, it isn’t ok to charge interest when lending money to people in need or for reasons that don’t involve profit making. This is because of charity.
Problem with way #1: This seems to disregard Christ’s teaching and the tradition of the Church. If a person expects interest when giving money for any reason (such as giving money to a poor person), it can cause them to be in constant debt to the lender (and it makes it better if you had never given money to a poor person who used the money to deal with their serious needs (e.g food).)
Problem with way #2: It seems in this way, all credit card companies and anyone who charges interest on something not intended to make a profit is committing usury. What about the Vatican bank and the Catholics who work there? What about Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, and his response indicating banks giving out loans for people to do good things (such as marry, which doesn’t create a profit)? Is he encouraging usury?
I will not be accepting the response that the Church has changed its opinion/teaching, or that all of these banks/people are committing usury, which eventually still results in the response that the Church changed its teaching.
Thoughts/help?
*
P
preferanonymous
Guest
“I will not be accepting the response that the Church has changed its opinion/teaching, or that all of these banks/people are committing usury, which eventually still results in the response that the Church changed its teaching.”
Why is it the case that all of these banks/people are committing usury would imply that the Church changed its teaching? For, suppose that the Church has always condemned the practice of usury but due to a misunderstanding of the modern economy, condoned the usurious practices of its current actors. The source of the error would not be moral, but descriptive.
Why is it the case that all of these banks/people are committing usury would imply that the Church changed its teaching? For, suppose that the Church has always condemned the practice of usury but due to a misunderstanding of the modern economy, condoned the usurious practices of its current actors. The source of the error would not be moral, but descriptive.
J
John21652
Guest
Not anymore!
But I have a new question in case anyone is still lurking (or wants to join). (Or maybe I should start a new thread?
The way I see it, and since Catholic groups are required to invest money according to some canon in the canon law * investing money can’t be all bad, especially considering the fact that the Vatican has a bank. But the two ways I can comprehend that justify interest have problems:
1 way: Because in the modern economy and the endless opportunities of investing money for a profit, when a person lends money to another person **(for any reason), ***they should receive interest, because they are losing a profit for the other person’s sake. After all, many Catholics are actively involved in finance and banking, and they lend to various people, regardless of what they will use their money for.
Another way: Because the modern economy gives endless opportunities for investment, it is right to charge interest when lending money to someone who is using the money with the intention of making a profit. However, it isn’t ok to charge interest when lending money to people in need or for reasons that don’t involve profit making. This is because of charity.
Problem with way #1: This seems to disregard Christ’s teaching and the tradition of the Church. If a person expects interest when giving money for any reason (such as giving money to a poor person), it can cause them to be in constant debt to the lender (and it makes it better if you had never given money to a poor person who used the money to deal with their serious needs (e.g food).)
Problem with way #2: It seems in this way, all credit card companies and anyone who charges interest on something not intended to make a profit is committing usury. What about the Vatican bank and the Catholics who work there? What about Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, and his response indicating banks giving out loans for people to do good things (such as marry, which doesn’t create a profit)? Is he encouraging usury?
I will not be accepting the response that the Church has changed its opinion/teaching, or that all of these banks/people are committing usury, which eventually still results in the response that the Church changed its teaching.
Thoughts/help?
There is q ontradiction in your “two ways”.
Can you see it?
In Way 1 you include the words “for any reason”, saying people lending money should recieve interest because of opportunity cost.
Then in Way 2 you contradict your self by then saying interest should not be charged on money given as a charitable loan. In other words, the words “for any reason” no longer apply.
Take them out and the money lender can then distinguish between money required by someone to start a business and money lent to someone to get them up out of the gutter. The latter is an act of Charity and is completely voluntary. You exdpect no recompense. After all, if you “donate” to charity, you don’t consider it a loan, do you?
As for charging interest and considering it to be outside Church teqching and history, that is false. The Templar Knights were Christendom’s first Bankers and they began operating in the 1100’s under the direct authority of the Popes. They transferred money from place to place; they loaned money at interest in order that the risk be covered and they lent vast sums to the early European Monarchs and those loans often kept the Monarchs solvent. They also dispensed Charity and so not all loans attracted interest.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Thanks. So Catholicism DOES have a banking history. But then would what makes a loan (and charging interest) usurious depend on what the person you are loaning money does? From what I know, loans on something and expecting interest from the loan on something that is “unproductive” is usury, but on something “productive” it isn’t usury. For instance, credit card companies. Would they be committing usury? And would banks be if they loaned out money for reasons such as marriage (an example ettore gotti tedeschi uses)?
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I don’t think that the Church would ever condone sin.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Nobody? Help would really by appreciated. Please?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Preferanonymous,
You have made some excellent points … but, there are a few problems…
I think there are four concepts that need to be kept in mind to get a good grasp of this topic.
1.) the concept of money, credit and banking was not well developed at the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.
2.) Everything that has ‘value’ or ‘worth’ has it because men want that item. To the man who is drowning, having his pockets filled with gold is a major threat to his life!
3.) ‘Usury’ used to be viewed as the excessive charge for the use of someone’s money - not just any charge. Years ago, the top charge on a credit card was 18%/year. Today the wonder is how some of these lenders can get their shirts on over that ‘big fin’ growing out of their backs!
4.) "Market forces’ at least in the sense of the Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ were not well developed as a concept (‘buy low, sell high’) when the Church was developing its view on usury. Then there was the concept that Jews could lend money - because this was a needed service - but Christians were prohibited which probably complicated competition. (But, that is just a guess on my part.
Back during the time when most of what money people had was spent on food, clothing or shelter - investing was hardly an issue. In 1274 (the year St. Thomas died) could people buy ‘futures’ in crops or live stock to help farmers stabilize prices? I am not aware of this - and because of the uncertainty of farming (especially with today’s technology) there were people who did not have money to invest in seed for the next year’s crops.
My real concern is using the Angelic Doctor as an authority on this topic when viewed within the context of today’s economy.
God bless
You have made some excellent points … but, there are a few problems…
I think there are four concepts that need to be kept in mind to get a good grasp of this topic.
1.) the concept of money, credit and banking was not well developed at the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.
2.) Everything that has ‘value’ or ‘worth’ has it because men want that item. To the man who is drowning, having his pockets filled with gold is a major threat to his life!
3.) ‘Usury’ used to be viewed as the excessive charge for the use of someone’s money - not just any charge. Years ago, the top charge on a credit card was 18%/year. Today the wonder is how some of these lenders can get their shirts on over that ‘big fin’ growing out of their backs!
4.) "Market forces’ at least in the sense of the Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ were not well developed as a concept (‘buy low, sell high’) when the Church was developing its view on usury. Then there was the concept that Jews could lend money - because this was a needed service - but Christians were prohibited which probably complicated competition. (But, that is just a guess on my part.
Back during the time when most of what money people had was spent on food, clothing or shelter - investing was hardly an issue. In 1274 (the year St. Thomas died) could people buy ‘futures’ in crops or live stock to help farmers stabilize prices? I am not aware of this - and because of the uncertainty of farming (especially with today’s technology) there were people who did not have money to invest in seed for the next year’s crops.
My real concern is using the Angelic Doctor as an authority on this topic when viewed within the context of today’s economy.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Chosen People,
I think you are correct in several of the points you have presented - and, honestly, many apologies are owed to Jewish people throughout the world for terrible injustices and a general lack of charity.
There were times when you seem to combine the Church with the government at the time - and some of these laws were honestly strictly secular. The close proximity of Church leaders and governmental leaders only adds to the confusion of being able to make a clear cut distinction - but, it does exist and it does need to be made.
As one human being to another, please accept my apology for what took place - and is taking place in the US and throughout the world.
God bless
I think you are correct in several of the points you have presented - and, honestly, many apologies are owed to Jewish people throughout the world for terrible injustices and a general lack of charity.
There were times when you seem to combine the Church with the government at the time - and some of these laws were honestly strictly secular. The close proximity of Church leaders and governmental leaders only adds to the confusion of being able to make a clear cut distinction - but, it does exist and it does need to be made.
As one human being to another, please accept my apology for what took place - and is taking place in the US and throughout the world.
God bless
- Status