What changes in the Catholic Church...

[Dave_Noonan]

Please cite your source.

I noted two in my earlier post plus two church councils you can read about. What’s your source that usury is only a discipline of canon law and not of doctrine? Certainly it’s an issue of faith and morals.

 

[SteveVH]

I noted two in my earlier post plus two church councils you can read about. What’s your source that usury is only a discipline of canon law and not of doctrine? Certainly it’s an issue of faith and morals.

The nature of the issue. Canon law applies to the behavior of the clergy and the faithful, which would be pertinent to this issue. Of course the basis for canon law would be the Church’s dogmas and doctrines, just as the laws of our nation are based upon moral values, but there is no doctrine concerning interest rates or usury. There is moral teaching, based upon divine revelation, that says that it is sinful to take advantage of another. It is a sin against charity. While charging a reasonable interest rate is not sinful, usury is always sinful.

 

[adf417]

I don’t understand the question

Sorry for not being more clear with my question.

In talking to some non-Catholics about some of the changes that the CC has administer over the years it seems that there is much confusion. It seems that the changes are all viewed as doctrinal as opposed to practice or cultural.

In a recent conversation with a JW, his justification for their previous failed attempts to predict the end of the world was made lite of as “no big deal” and he compared it to the CC changing its stance on the “whole Galileo affair”.

This thread is not about how to defend the CC about the Galileo affair nor is it about the JW’s missing a calculation on such a minor event but it just got me wondering. What other misunderstandings might there be in what is doctrinal and what is not.

Thank you JonNC and Dave Noonon for your contributions.

Peace!

 

[concretecamper]

Sorry for not being more clear with my question.

In talking to some non-Catholics about some of the changes that the CC has administer over the years it seems that there is much confusion. It seems that the changes are all viewed as doctrinal as opposed to practice or cultural.

In a recent conversation with a JW, his justification for their previous failed attempts to predict the end of the world was made lite of as “no big deal” and he compared it to the CC changing its stance on the “whole Galileo affair”.

This thread is not about how to defend the CC about the Galileo affair nor is it about the JW’s missing a calculation on such a minor event but it just got me wondering. What other misunderstandings might there be in what is doctrinal and what is not.

Thank you JonNC and Dave Noonon for your contributions.

Peace!

Not that I subscribe to such, but is Geocentrism impossible for God?

 

[Reuben_J]

Usury was at one time condemned. It was one of the common avenues of attack again st Jews (they couldn’t own land or be members of the nobility, thus in medieval society they were forced to be bankers).
This condemnation was broken by the Calvinists who embraced it, and over time the strong condemnation of other Christians has gradually withered away. I’m not sure if you’ll find anything by the church saying it is a good thing, but they tend to be silent on the subject (this includes most churches, not just the Catholic Church).

Dave Noonan:

The practice was condemned (the penalty being excommunication) as late as the Council of Vienna (1311) but then the position was reversed by the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). The Catholic Church had long condemned the practice on philosophical and biblical grounds. Aquinas has extensive discussions about it in the Summa if you’re interested in a good Catholic summary of the position.

You can also follow the history of the Church’s condemnation in David Jones, Reforming the Morality of Usury, although the focus of the book is mainly about arguments among early Protestant reformers.

Thanks for the information. Personally I did not think much about this and often gladly rush all the way to my bank receiving my accumulated interest from my saving.

 

[Nine_Two]

Please cite your source.

The traditional condemnation is based on the teachings of the Pentateuch (I’d cite a verse but the site I use to look these things up seems to be down right now). It is quite clear that making money off lending money is the issue, and not just overcharging interest.

For what it is worth, the Jews (at least during the Middle Ages) interpreted this as only applying to Jews when dealing with other Jews. So they had no moral issue with charging interest to non-Jews.

 

[SteveVH]

The traditional condemnation is based on the teachings of the Pentateuch (I’d cite a verse but the site I use to look these things up seems to be down right now). It is quite clear that making money off lending money is the issue, and not just overcharging interest.

For what it is worth, the Jews (at least during the Middle Ages) interpreted this as only applying to Jews when dealing with other Jews. So they had no moral issue with charging interest to non-Jews.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Heart_Foam]

This thread inspired me to sign up. I’m not going to be one of those who racks up thousands, or even hundreds of posts. And, before anyone asks, Heart Foam is a reference to a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta.

What changes? Ah well. That’s a big subject. A good place to start would be to observe, as every well-informed Catholic will know, that Rome decided that the Vulgate is more correct than the texts from which it was translated. This is why the RSV and the RSV-CE are wildly different. (I’m not endorsing or criticising the translation, just giving an example.) For Catholic approval, when there is any discrepancy, the Vulgate is preferred over the older manuscripts. So when a Catholic talks about Scripture being inspired, presumably you mean the Vulgate. There are some massive conceptual differences. Differences such as repent / do penance. The Greek metanoia always, even in non-religious contexts, carried the sense of a change of mind or heart. English Protestant Bibles, not hamstrung by having to agree with the Vulgate, tend to translate metanoia as “repent”. But Catholic Bibles, such as the Douay-Rheims, are translations of a translation. Luke 13:3 for example in many Bibles says - Jesus speaking - “unless you repent…”, but the Catholic Douay-Rheims that reflects the Vulgate says “unless you shall do penance”. That change from repent, meaning a change of heart and mind (and we Protestants hold to sola fide), to do penance, meaning an act that atones for sin, fundamentally skews the Gospel to a works salvation.

So to answer the question, this change in Catholic doctrine from Biblical doctrine has great bearing on salvation. I’ll freely admit there was penance practiced in the early church, but it was hugely different from the current practice and it was done for very different reasons. This in turn has great implications for Catholic authority. If Scripture is inspired and inerrant, then was Jesus right or was Jerome? If Scripture is regarded as magisterial teaching - and I’ve seen this line taken by prominent Catholic apologists - then in principle the teaching of the magisterium is not perspicuous because even the words of Jesus Christ are subject to correction by a monk who knew better. Did Jesus say, as recorded in Matthew 4:17, “repent” or did he say “do penance”? It is absolutely constitutes a doctrinal change. There is a big theological and soteriological difference between the two.

 

[Reuben_J]

That change from repent, meaning a change of heart and mind (and we Protestants hold to sola fide), to do penance, meaning an act that atones for sin, fundamentally skews the Gospel to a works salvation.

Hi. Welcome to the Forum.

Just a short take on this and I begin with two questions. In practice, how does one go about in repentance and in doing penance? Is there true repentance without doing penance?

If Scripture is inspired and inerrant, then was Jesus right or was Jerome?

I suppose one still has to figure out what Jesus meant when he said something.

If Scripture is regarded as magisterial teaching - and I’ve seen this line taken by prominent Catholic apologists - then in principle the teaching of the magisterium is not perspicuous because even the words of Jesus Christ are subject to correction by a monk who knew better.

Scripture needs to be understood as it is not self-explained.

I often hear your lines spoken by others but ultimately the same person would interpret the scripture which very often differ from other persons. There is a problem there, is it not?

Did Jesus say, as recorded in Matthew 4:17, “repent” or did he say “do penance”? It is absolutely constitutes a doctrinal change. There is a big theological and soteriological difference between the two.

So what did Jesus really said?

 

[exnihilo]

From my perspective, the change in the permissibility of charging interest constitutes a dramatic change in Catholic moral doctrine.

I second this issue. As you point out it seems to have gone from a grave sin to not a sin at all with the understanding that usury was any interest on a loan not an ‘excessive’ rate.

 

[Nine_Two]

Okay. Thanks.

Just in case you’re still interested, I found the verse. Deuteronomy 23:19:
NIV:

Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.

You can see where the Jewish tradition that it only applies to Jews comes from, but in Christianity it has always been interpreted more generally.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m a poor student of the Catholic church, but I would say there are several doctrines that have changed over the years - none of them rising to any issue of salvation for the adherent, but one in particular could lead to a Catholic having a poor notion of justification or sanctification.

So… the easy ones:

• Pious beliefs about Mary tuned into doctrine or dogma.
• The Patriarch of Rome slowly turning into the the powerful Papal office with secular power, papal infallibility and universal jursidiction.

Here’s the one that may get some Catholics into a small amount of trouble:

• Turning the correct teaching that ordinary salvation requires the church into the dogma of “no salvation outside the church.”

Where this becomes an issue is when a good Catholic perhaps uses this as part of their own personal justification - it could lead to a stunting of their justification and sanctification (for a time) if they point to it exclusively as evidence and then use that evidence to pronounce themselves in a state of Grace

If I may put a caveat to all of this - the amount of Catholics that have been possible ensnared in this trap is probably zero. But I think there’s a danger of resting on the idea of “I’m inside the church!” and perhaps take a bit too much pride in it that fact.

 

[SteveVH]

Just in case you’re still interested, I found the verse. Deuteronomy 23:19:

You can see where the Jewish tradition that it only applies to Jews comes from, but in Christianity it has always been interpreted more generally.

Well, its a little more complicated than this. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*"Is it permitted to lend at interest? Formerly (see USURY) the Church rigorously condemned the exacting of anything over and above capital, except when, by reason of some special circumstance, the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain. These special reasons, which authorize the charging of interest, are called extrinsic titles.

Besides these compensatory interests, the Church has likewise admitted moratory interest. In our day, she permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one’s having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends. This demand is never unjust. Charity alone, not justice, can oblige anyone to make a gratuitous loan (see the replies of the Penitentiary and of the Holy Office since 1830).

What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article USURY, this difference is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest."*

So there has been no change in “doctrine”. It is the application of the moral teaching that has changed due to a different economic paradigm.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, its a little more complicated than this. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*"Is it permitted to lend at interest? Formerly (see USURY) the Church rigorously condemned the exacting of anything over and above capital, except when, by reason of some special circumstance, the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain. These special reasons, which authorize the charging of interest, are called extrinsic titles.

Besides these compensatory interests, the Church has likewise admitted moratory interest. In our day, she permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one’s having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends. This demand is never unjust. Charity alone, not justice, can oblige anyone to make a gratuitous loan (see the replies of the Penitentiary and of the Holy Office since 1830).

What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article USURY, this difference is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest."*

So there has been no change in “doctrine”. It is the application of the moral teaching that has changed due to a different economic paradigm.

I’d never said it was a doctrine. I just answered peoples comments on the changing definition of usury. I’m still not comfortable with it, but I’ll agree that the economic system does play a role in changing the moral outlook on it.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, its a little more complicated than this. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article USURY, this difference is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest."*

So there has been no change in “doctrine”. It is the application of the moral teaching that has changed due to a different economic paradigm.

From what you quoted I still don’t understand the difference. The price of goods has always been determined by common valuation.

‘Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate.’

In the past one could use money corporately. Certainly corporate laws have changed over time. But there was always the possibility and likely practice of corporate entities. How does the above explanation apply to banks putting their money into an individual’s home? The bank is a syndicate, but the receiver is not. Is the principle that a corporate organization can charge interest but an individual can not?

I find this statement confusing: ‘Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value’. Today money really has even less value than in the past. In the past money was precious metals or notes convertible to precious metals. Thus the money actually had a value backing it. Today money has no such backing. The value of money is determined by many factors including the supply which is regulated by central banks which have the authority to print however much money they want. If the statement means to say that due to the fact that the value of money is speculative due to the monopoly power of central banks to liberally print it then it would make sense to allow people to charge interest to prevent loss of value due to deflation.

The language in the quoted explanation is a bit archaic and I don’t find that it really explains clearly what has changed to make usury no longer the mere charging of any interest.

 

[SteveVH]

I’d never said it was a doctrine. I just answered peoples comments on the changing definition of usury. I’m still not comfortable with it, but I’ll agree that the economic system does play a role in changing the moral outlook on it.

Yes, I realize that this was not your argument. But our discussion was based upon the following post:

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan
I noted two in my earlier post plus two church councils you can read about. What’s your source that usury is only a discipline of canon law and not of doctrine? Certainly it’s an issue of faith and morals.

 

[SteveVH]

From what you quoted I still don’t understand the difference. The price of goods has always been determined by common valuation.

‘Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one’s money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate.’

In the past one could use money corporately. Certainly corporate laws have changed over time. But there was always the possibility and likely practice of corporate entities. How does the above explanation apply to banks putting their money into an individual’s home? The bank is a syndicate, but the receiver is not. Is the principle that a corporate organization can charge interest but an individual can not?

I find this statement confusing: ‘Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value’. Today money really has even less value than in the past. In the past money was precious metals or notes convertible to precious metals. Thus the money actually had a value backing it. Today money has no such backing. The value of money is determined by many factors including the supply which is regulated by central banks which have the authority to print however much money they want. If the statement means to say that due to the fact that the value of money is speculative due to the monopoly power of central banks to liberally print it then it would make sense to allow people to charge interest to prevent loss of value due to deflation.

The language in the quoted explanation is a bit archaic and I don’t find that it really explains clearly what has changed to make usury no longer the mere charging of any interest.

I’m sorry you don’t understand. Maybe you should read it again. 2000 years ago there weren’t a lot of opportunities to invest one’s money and earn interest. Today, the value of the money is not just what we are holding in our hand, but rather what it is worth if we invest it in a “syndicate” (mutual funds, etc.). If I lend that money, I not only risk the principal amount, but also that which I could have made through investing it. Therefore, it is not unjust to charge a reasonable rate of interest. At the same time, one is free to lend or even give their money, out of charity, with no interest at all.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I noted two in my earlier post plus two church councils you can read about.

It’s a matter of morals but that doesn’t solve the problem of finding where the Church defined usury as charging interest. The Fifth Lateran Council sure doesn’t define it that way.

 

[exnihilo]

2000 years ago there weren’t a lot of opportunities to invest one’s money and earn interest.

I’m not an expert in the economies of the ancient world. But the words of Jesus seem to indicate there were opportunities to invest and earn interest. In the Parable of the Three Servants in Matthew 25:27 it says ‘Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest’ (RSV). If these words have the same meaning today as they did then there were bankers and you could earn interest. It seems fairly certain you could invest your money and earn interest.

Today, the value of the money is not just what we are holding in our hand, but rather what it is worth if we invest it in a “syndicate” (mutual funds, etc.).

There is the Time Value of Money. That is not a modern invention but an economic reality. Behind any loan is the idea that someone needs or wants money now and someone else has money now that they don’t need or want. The difference in time preferences translates into an interest payment and likewise a rate. I’m not sure what all is included under the idea of a ‘syndicate’. And I’m not sure why a syndicate is a relevant factor in determining morality.

Is the idea that if the loan is for business investment then you can charge interest? But if the loan is for personal need then you can’t charge interest?

If I lend that money, I not only risk the principal amount, but also that which I could have made through investing it. Therefore, it is not unjust to charge a reasonable rate of interest. At the same time, one is free to lend or even give their money, out of charity, with no interest at all.

Is the idea that now that there are complex and easy investment opportunities I can charge interest but in the past it is alleged investment opportunities were not easy or common and therefore it was unlikely that any savings could be invested. And since it was unlikely that made interest charging immoral?

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not an expert in the economies of the ancient world. But the words of Jesus seem to indicate there were opportunities to invest and earn interest. In the Parable of the Three Servants in Matthew 25:27 it says ‘Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest’ (RSV). If these words have the same meaning today as they did then there were bankers and you could earn interest. It seems fairly certain you could invest your money and earn interest.

And it also seems that Jesus didn’t have a problem with it. In fact, he excoriates the one who did not invest his money for the very purpose of earning interest.

Is the idea that if the loan is for business investment then you can charge interest? But if the loan is for personal need then you can’t charge interest?

Is the idea that now that there are complex and easy investment opportunities I can charge interest but in the past it is alleged investment opportunities were not easy or common and therefore it was unlikely that any savings could be invested. And since it was unlikely that made interest charging immoral?

The idea is that you don’t take advantage of one who is in need regardless of the time or culture in which one lives. If one is starving you do not lend him much needed money and then charge an exorbitant interest rate to take advantage of the situation. That is the moral teaching to be applied in all times. Reasonable interest, depending upon the situation, is not immoral. Usury is always immoral.