Usury

[Aloysius]

no, it's not JUST the name that must be changed, but the nature of what you're asking for. usury is when you charge money for the use of money, NOT allowed. the parallel title means that if a lender is lending money without any interest at all to a borrower and it is an unproductive loan, seeing as the lender has absolutely no purpose for lending this person money and thus why should they?, they are allowed to make other deals on the side on production.

meaning lender A agrees to lend money to borrower B for something that will not be productive of any profit and thus there will be no interest, so long as borrower B also agrees to enter into another contract on something that is productive with lender A.

so say I borrow money from lender A for a house and there is no house. lender A will also want me to invest in his business for example. or, lender A will require that there be a parallel loan connected to be used for me to produce goods and the lender shares in the profit.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2005, 05:35 PM']
no, it's not JUST the name that must be changed, but the nature of what you're asking for. usury is when you charge money for the use of money, NOT allowed. the parallel title means that if a lender is lending money without any interest at all to a borrower and it is an unproductive loan, seeing as the lender has absolutely no purpose for lending this person money and thus why should they?, they are allowed to make other deals on the side on production.

RESPONSE:

If that were the case, the "deal on the side" is intrinsic to the loan contract. This isn't allowed according to Vix Pervenit:

"By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the contract-may run parallel with it. "

But the Catholic Church now overlooks this and allows loaning for interest. So in effect, the Church's original prohibition at loaning for interest has been reversed.

[Aloysius]

the deal on the side is specifically NOT intrinsic to the loan contract. you completely missed the point, it would be an entirely seperate deal. because the loan contract is dealing with unproductive matter and as such no profit happens and so no interest can be charged justly... so there would be a deal on the side dealing with productive matter clearly not intrinsic to the loan contract, but to give the lender incentive to continue with the loan contract he is not profiting from.

it is an incentive, not intrinsic to the loan contract, but rather an investment on productive matter wherein someone can by traditional teaching still make profit running alongside the loan to keep the lender interested in the particular borrower (otherwise there would be no reason for the lender to do business with the borrower)

the Church doesn't allow it, she hasn't said anything about it in recent times. she's moved on to more pressing issues. you see, the wisdom of oposing interest would've been to protect true private property in society, it's already been so far destroyed that it is nearly irreversable without some catechlismic event in the near future. therefore the Church has simply not discussed it. And just because the Vatican Bank does an action doesn't mean that has behind it the moral support of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Vatican Bank is clearly a part of the human side of the church and not at all connected to the magisterial teaching.

loaning for interest on an unproductive loan (note the definitive decision of the fifth lateran council specifying that it must be on an unproductive loan) is immoral under moral codes throughout the world, ancient Hindu (before it was revised in the second century AD) buddhist, umm.. Aristotle and the Greek philosophers, the Holy Scriptures, Mohammad and Islam, the Roman Empire outlawed it and in its final days was allowing it (some argue it even contributed to ruining the Roman Empire), the Holy Catholic Church most notably in the Lateran Councils but many times before and after those, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

the decisions of the Lateran Councils are still authoritative, infallibly doctrinal, and binding. They have not been abrogated or reversed in any way. the Church merely has not been emphasizing it as much in recent times, and I've given you the reasons why (we basically lost that battle, and are attempting to work within the system modern society has built for itself to gradually draw it back) but the doctrine is still in force and binding.

and wow, you are so conditioned to talking about this red-herring style in discussions of infallibility that you cannot allow yourself to talk about the issue of usury itself

anyway, again, the deal on the side is not intrinsic to the loan contract, it is an investment on productive ventures that give incentive for the lender to do business with the borrower at all on other non-productive and thus non-morally-profitable for the lender.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:01 AM']
and wow, you are so conditioned to talking about this red-herring style in discussions of infallibility that you cannot allow yourself to talk about the issue of usury itself


[right][snapback]657930[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church for most of its existence taught that chattell slavery was morally legitimate supported by both the natural law and scripture, and that loaning of maoney for any interest was contrary to scriptural teachings and the natural law.

Teachings that have been taught at all times and in all places, also, by Catholic definition, are supposed to be infallible by way of the universal and ordinary magisterium.

Both teachings have been changed. Thus it is shown that the claim about the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium is also in error.

Apologists have to pretend that these teachings either never existed or didn't mean what they plainly said. Otherwise, their claim of infallibility collapses like a house of cards.

[Aloysius]

except that my argument on usury has not just fallen like a house of cards and right now that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about USURY. I have shown to you the consistency of it, you have shown me nothing contradictory in any statement. I explained how the parallel deal idea works, you have not responded.

okay, I know you love using this as a red herring to the discussion of infallibility, but right now all we're talking about is usury. We are also not talking about slavery, JUST USURY. I refuse to talk to you if you do not stay on topic and perhaps respond to my last two posts where I polverized your contention that paralel titles were a change in teaching.

It would really gain you a lot of credibility to just admit that there is no contradiciton in the teaching (as I showed there isn't)

just the magisterium hasn't said anything about it recently because it lost the battle and society's reliance upon usury seems irreversable at this point in time. by the definition of the Fifth Lateran Council Usury, interest asked for on any unproductive loan, is still infallibly held by the Catholic Church to be immoral.

don't talk to me about slavery. don't talk to me about infallibility. talk to me about usury.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 25 2005, 12:36 PM'] except that my argument on usury has not just fallen like a house of cards and right now that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about USURY.  I have shown to you the consistency of it, you have shown me nothing contradictory in any statement.  I explained how the parallel deal idea works, you have not responded. 

okay, I know you love using this as a red herring to the discussion of infallibility, but right now all we're talking about is usury.  We are also not talking about slavery, JUST USURY.  I refuse to talk to you if you do not stay on topic and perhaps respond to my last two posts where I polverized your contention that paralel titles were a change in teaching. 

It would really gain you a lot of credibility to just admit that there is no contradiciton in the teaching (as I showed there isn't)

just the magisterium hasn't said anything about it recently because it lost the battle and society's reliance upon usury seems irreversable at this point in time.  by the definition of the Fifth Lateran Council Usury, interest asked for on any unproductive loan, is still infallibly held by the Catholic Church to be immoral.

don't talk to me about slavery.  don't talk to me about infallibility.  talk to me about usury.
[right][snapback]658303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The question having to do with usury has been answered and that answer is supported by the evidence.

Vix Pervenit : "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 TH AMOUNT HE GAVE is illicit and usurious."

Q.E.D.


Perhaps you should stay on topic. We are NOT debating the issue of the morality of usury. We are discussing the Church's original teaching. If you want to debate the morality of charging interest, a separate topic, may I suggest that you start a separate thread.

Simply put, the Catholic Church revoked its earlier teaching on usury.
Slavery also!

[Aloysius]

You are confused. The definition of the Fifth Lateran Council clearly limits it to unproductive loans, the encyclical you continue to cite allows for productive parallel titles alongside a loan that is unproductive so that the lender has an avenue of profit that gives him incentive to do business with the borrower. this avenue of profit is not intrinsic to the unproductive loan at all but rather to the productive loan.

And the topic was started asking about the morality of usury. While the original teaching (which I have upheld) comes into play, the issue of whether or not the Church ever changes its teaching and whether it is infallible is another question altogether. So is slavery, another topic.

I have proven myself with the Lateran Councils and showed the continuity that your offered encyclical offers. You have not shown anything from the Church to contradict the Lateran Councils.

The End. unless you bring up some new point, I bid you good day.

[track2004]

The topic didn't start because I wanted to know the morality of usury. I know what I think about my father's occupation. I know what I think about loans and interest and credit. Mostly I wanted to see whether the Church's position had in fact changed over the years. Seems like it has, though the unproductive loan thing is a valid point. Along the unproductive laon thing though, my credit card is usuerous if I don't pay it off monthly. Anyway I need to get to work. Good day.

[Aloysius]

This was buried in my response to Littleles, but this was my answer:

"Anyway, to the original question, I answer with Aquinas

[quote]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....

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethics v, Polit. i) 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 man is bound to restore ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury....

A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having....

[b]It is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need.[/b] [i][emphasis mine][/i][/quote]


I would, based on the last sentence, think your father is fine because it is not his decision to lend based on usury, but the bank who is "ready to do so" and your father is simply applying the bank's policies with a good end in view, helping those who need loans."

If I were a loan officer for a bank I would probably put that bold quote up in my office somewhere lol but that's just my crazy self

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:49 PM']You are confused.  The definition of the Fifth Lateran Council clearly limits it to unproductive loans, the encyclical you continue to cite allows for productive parallel titles alongside a loan that is unproductive so that the lender has an avenue of profit that gives him incentive to do business with the borrower.  this avenue of profit is not intrinsic to the unproductive loan at all but rather to the productive loan.

And the topic was started asking about the morality of usury.  While the original teaching (which I have upheld) comes into play, the issue of whether or not the Church ever changes its teaching and whether it is infallible is another question altogether.  So is slavery, another topic.

I have proven myself with the Lateran Councils and showed the continuity that your offered encyclical offers.  You have not shown anything from the Church to contradict the Lateran Councils.

The End.  unless you bring up some new point, I bid you good day.
[right][snapback]658408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The question was if the Church had changed her moral teachings. It has. This was demonstrated by the quotation from Vix Pervenit.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='track2004' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:07 PM']The topic didn't start because I wanted to know the morality of usury.  I know what I think about my father's occupation.  I know what I think about loans and interest and credit.  Mostly I wanted to see whether the Church's position had in fact changed over the years.  Seems like it has, though the unproductive loan thing is a valid point.  Along the unproductive laon thing though, my credit card is usuerous if I don't pay it off monthly.  Anyway I need to get to work.  Good day.
[right][snapback]658425[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yes, credit cards tend to be usurious. I still answer that with that last sentence in my Aquinas quote.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:31 PM']RESPONSE:

The question was if the Church had changed her moral teachings. It has. This was demonstrated by the quotation from Vix Pervenit.
[right][snapback]658479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
sorry, it hasn't. anyway, I'm not attempting to convince you, but to convince any audience who happens to read this discussion, because I know you'll never give this topic up as it is a perfect red herring to muddle up the entire discussion for you any time the topic of infallibility comes up.

[Aloysius]

ahhh... the most beautiful site on all of PhatMass, perhaps indeed in all of online christendom:

[img]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/837215/beautiful.JPG[/img]

to get your very own view of this spectacular site: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=usercp&CODE=ignore&uid=2442"]click here[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:31 PM']RESPONSE:

The question was if the Church had changed her moral teachings. It has. This was demonstrated by the quotation from Vix Pervenit.
[right][snapback]658479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ADDED RESPONSE:

"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."

[Pope Clement Vth at the Oecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-1312) Canon 29]

[Aloysius]

Yeah... and Vix Pervenit does not say that the practice of usury is not sinful. It is sinful, under the definitions of the Lateran Councils I offered. Interest asked for on an unproductive loan is sinful on the part of the person who decides to ask for interest on the unproductive loan.

There can be side deals of investing on productive ventures in which both lender and borrower profit. That is not usury.