Usury

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarpeian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tarpeian

Guest
Has anyone watched Usury in Christendom, by Michael Hoffman on youtube? Any thoughts? The substance of the talk is valid, but he seems to call in to question Infallibility of previous Vicars of Holy Mother Church.

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
I know all the baggage but has anyone listened to the video. As a militant Roman Catholic nothing shakes my faith and nothing prevents me from listening to views by controversial people.

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
I’m sorry, but his being a Holocaust denier calls into question the validity of both his research and his ability to analyze his results without bias.

I won’t waste my time watching, just as I won’t waste my time listening to the arguments of the SSPX, or Jack Chick, or the Westboro Baptist Church. There are too many good and objective historians and theologians out there whose works I haven’t read yet.
 
Fair enough. So lets get to the crux of the issue. Is usury in any form a mortal sin?

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
And to be fair to Hoffman he denies the number, not the crimes against the jews. If its one or 6-9 million its one too many. And as a Roman Catholic it sickens me that as repulsive as the holocaust was, why is the world silent on my Catholic brethren who met their maker in those same camps silent?

Just a thought.
 
And to be fair to Hoffman he denies the number, not the crimes against the jews. If its one or 6-9 million its one too many. And as a Roman Catholic it sickens me that as repulsive as the holocaust was, why is the world silent on my Catholic brethren who met their maker in those same camps silent?

Just a thought.
it isn’t
 
My personal library is over 1,000 books not including homeschool material. Ask ten people ages 10-30 who went to government school, what group or groups were slaughtered during the Shoah and get back to me. If you honestly get one to answer correctly, I will send you a book of your choice from my collection.

Is usury a Mortal sin?
 
Fair enough. So lets get to the crux of the issue. Is usury in any form a mortal sin?
Some of our most recent popes (and the Catechism) talk about usury as a serious sin. I’m not sure about “mortal” sin, though.

From Pope John Paul II, Address to the Members of the National Council of Anti-Usury Foundations (1999): I know well, dear friends, the difficulties that you face. But I know that you are determined and united in fighting this serious social evil. Continue to combat usury, giving hope to individuals and families who are its victims. The Pope encourages you to pursue your generous work to build a more just society, one of solidarity, and more attentive to the demands of the needy. From Pope John Paul II, General Audience (4 February 2004): Finally, three final precepts are listed for our examination of conscience: to be faithful to our word and to our oaths, even in those cases where the consequences will be detrimental to us; not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people; and finally to avoid all corruption in public life, another commitment that we could also rigorously practice in our time . . . From Pope John Paul II, General Audience, (10 Nov 2004): The first false god [is] the violence which humanity unfortunately continues to resort to even in these bloody days,. . . Accompanying this idol is an immense procession of wars, oppression, perversions, torture and killing, inflicted without any trace of remorse. . . . the second false god is robbery which is expressed in extortion, social injustice, usury, political and economic corruption. From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church §323 and 341 (2004): The prophetic tradition condemns fraud, usury, exploitation and gross injustice, especially when directed against the poor . . .
Although the quest for equitable profit is acceptable in economic and financial activity, recourse to usury is to be morally condemned: “Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them”.[714] This condemnation extends also to international economic relations, especially with regard to the situation in less advanced countries, which must never be made to suffer “abusive if not usurious financial systems”.[715] More recently, the Magisterium used strong and clear words against this practice, which is still tragically widespread, describing usury as “a scourge that is also a reality in our time and that has a stranglehold on many peoples’ lives”.[716] From the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §508 (2005): 508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?

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.From Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience (2005): The heart of this fidelity to the divine word consists in a fundamental choice of charity towards the poor and needy: ‘The good man takes pity and lends … Open-handed, he gives to the poor” (vv. 5, 9). The person of faith, then, is generous; respecting the biblical norms, he offers help to his brother in need, asking nothing in return (Deuteronomy 15: 7-11), and without falling into the shame of usury, which destroys the lives of the poor.’ From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2269 (1993): The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.
 
My personal library is over 1,000 books not including homeschool material. Ask ten people ages 10-30 who went to government school, what group or groups were slaughtered during the Shoah and get back to me. If you honestly get one to answer correctly, I will send you a book of your choice from my collection.

Is usury a Mortal sin?
that’s a small library, but then with all these online sources, one doesn’t need many volumes these days.

depends on how you define “usury”. usury has a legal definition, there are many others.

so it depends.
 
Yes but there is nothing like holding a book in your hand. And I don’t count the books on my kindle as part of my library. They are really not mine when you think about it floating out there in cyberspace.

I don’t see why Dr. Hoffman makes the claims about the current Pope’s being complicit in allowing usury? Besides that the he knocks it out of the park.
 
Yes but there is nothing like holding a book in your hand. And I don’t count the books on my kindle as part of my library. They are really not mine when you think about it floating out there in cyberspace.

I don’t see why Dr. Hoffman makes the claims about the current Pope’s being complicit in allowing usury? Besides that the he knocks it out of the park.
the church did not allow money lending, any interest was usury, so the role of money lenders was filled by Jewish banking families. this presumably made sense in a medieval economy. now usury is defined as interest at a certain point above the prime lending rate.

agree about actual books.
 
Some of our most recent popes (and the Catechism) talk about usury as a serious sin. I’m not sure about “mortal” sin, though.

From Pope John Paul II, Address to the Members of the National Council of Anti-Usury Foundations (1999): I know well, dear friends, the difficulties that you face. But I know that you are determined and united in fighting this serious social evil. Continue to combat usury, giving hope to individuals and families who are its victims. The Pope encourages you to pursue your generous work to build a more just society, one of solidarity, and more attentive to the demands of the needy. From Pope John Paul II, General Audience (4 February 2004): Finally, three final precepts are listed for our examination of conscience: to be faithful to our word and to our oaths, even in those cases where the consequences will be detrimental to us; not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people; and finally to avoid all corruption in public life, another commitment that we could also rigorously practice in our time . . . From Pope John Paul II, General Audience, (10 Nov 2004): The first false god [is] the violence which humanity unfortunately continues to resort to even in these bloody days,. . . Accompanying this idol is an immense procession of wars, oppression, perversions, torture and killing, inflicted without any trace of remorse. . . . the second false god is robbery which is expressed in extortion, social injustice, usury, political and economic corruption. From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church §323 and 341 (2004): The prophetic tradition condemns fraud, usury, exploitation and gross injustice, especially when directed against the poor . . .
Although the quest for equitable profit is acceptable in economic and financial activity, recourse to usury is to be morally condemned: “Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them”.[714] This condemnation extends also to international economic relations, especially with regard to the situation in less advanced countries, which must never be made to suffer “abusive if not usurious financial systems”.[715] More recently, the Magisterium used strong and clear words against this practice, which is still tragically widespread, describing usury as “a scourge that is also a reality in our time and that has a stranglehold on many peoples’ lives”.[716] From the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §508 (2005): 508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?

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.From Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience (2005): The heart of this fidelity to the divine word consists in a fundamental choice of charity towards the poor and needy: ‘The good man takes pity and lends … Open-handed, he gives to the poor” (vv. 5, 9). The person of faith, then, is generous; respecting the biblical norms, he offers help to his brother in need, asking nothing in return (Deuteronomy 15: 7-11), and without falling into the shame of usury, which destroys the lives of the poor.’ From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2269 (1993): The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.
Now if we just had a definition of usury.
 
Now if we just had a definition of usury.
From the Fifth Lateran Council:

“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”
 
Has anyone watched Usury in Christendom, by Michael Hoffman on youtube? Any thoughts? The substance of the talk is valid, but he seems to call in to question Infallibility of previous Vicars of Holy Mother Church.

Pax,
Tarpeian
You would think that after the Shoah, that after Vatican II, that Jew haters like Hofffman were a thing of the past, that Catholics and the Church would understand the danger of hatemongers and that they can not and should no be ignored. If not, it’s a small step back to burning the Talmud, making Jews wear a yellow patch marking them as Jews (in Hoffman’s world “pretend Jews”) or placing Jews in ghettos .
 
From the Fifth Lateran Council:

“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”
Pretty inadequate definition if you consider that the making of a loan is both risky and causes the lender to give up other uses for the money. I think we would need a modern definition from the era of the popes already quoted.
 
Pretty inadequate definition if you consider that the making of a loan is both risky and causes the lender to give up other uses for the money. I think we would need a modern definition from the era of the popes already quoted.
I don’t think its inadequate. It just goes to show how charging interest in the modern era isn’t per se usury like it was a long time ago.
 
#14 Usury 17/5/13
Fairwinds
the church did not allow money lending, any interest was usury, so the role of money lenders was filled by Jewish banking families. this presumably made sense in a medieval economy. now usury is defined as interest at a certain point above the prime lending rate.
Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but said nothing about the charging of interest in general.

However, Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise, as developed by the Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. As already mentioned, Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “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.”
Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top