As a wise person once said,
Economic reality changes. Human nature does not. Does it? Perhaps we could begin with that question?
The whole question of usury is, stripped of the usual rhetoric and fallacies of equivocation (e.g., what people today mean by usury v. what Aristotle meant), actually simple, viz. you shouldn't take a profit from something that doesn't generate a profit.
However, taking a profit is not unjust per se (i.e., is not "objectively evil"). There are circumstances when the greater good permit taking a profit when no profit is due, e.g., the State paying holders of bonds interest -- the disorder that would result from the State being unable to carry out its function due to lack of funds outweighs the limited evil of taking an unjust profit.
You can thus legitimately and morally charge interest on a loan that is invested in something that generates its own repayment. The market cost of capital approximates the objective value of the use of the money to the borrower, which also factors in risk and the character of the borrower.
You should not charge interest on a loan of which the proceeds are used for consumption purposes. The whole of our financial system, however, is intimately interconnected with charging interest on loans made for consumption purposes. The disorder and injustice that would occur should the system simply be abolished instead of reformed (e.g., along the lines recommended in the "capital homesteading" proposals developed by the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice, www.cesj.org), is a much greater evil than the limited evil of charging interest on consumer loans.
As with many things, while it is possible to say that usury is evil, it is not objectively evil, and it is possible to "participate" in it (e.g., by lending money to the State or to consumers and charging interest) without incurring moral guilt -- if the usual strictures governing the principle of double effect are met, AND reasonable efforts are made to restructure the social order so that the expedient of lending money for consumption purposes and charging interest is no longer necessary as a usual thing.
... okay, maybe that doesn't sound all that simple ... but it is. Really. It's all based on private property, which comes under justice. It doesn't have to be "declared infallibly" -- it's part of natural law. Specific papal strictures on usury are, as with all interpretation of natural law, tailored to a specific time and place, and the substance must be separated from the form if we want to apply the teachings to our day and age with any degree of rationality.
Kathy,
Permit me, my friend; no, human nature does not change. And I'm quite certain that in the back of our minds even the most incorrigible postmodernist knows this. But there are also numerous individuals, I'm convinced, who desparately wish to evade this knowledge and try to convince themselves it isn't so. C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man refers to those who have "sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what 'Humanity' shall henceforth mean." (p. 76)
Such proposals are no longer idle talk. In 2000, news leaked that an American company named Biotransplant and an Australian company named Stem Cell Sciences had successfully crossed a human being with a pig by inserting the nuclei of cells from a human fetus into the pigs' eggs. The embryos were destroyed when they reached the thirty-two-cell point, but they would have continue to grow had they been implanted in the womb of a woman--or a sow.
J. Bottom, in commenting on the event, writes: "... our swine-snouted grandchildren--the fruit not of our loins, but of our arrogance and our bright test tubes--will use the story of our generation to teach a moral to their frightened litters."
The fact that we are capable of destroying human nature doesn't mean there is no such thing. This is one of those many things, which, whatever controversy may surround it, J. Budziszewski says we simply "can't not know." And I agree with him.
A. Nonymouse, well-put.
PP, I know! I'm just baiting The Spirit of Vatican II!!
K.
can we make this about St. Mary's and
kneeling again?
When in a hole Dr Blosser … stop digging:
“As to usury and its comparison to Humanae vitae: the dissident priest makes a false analogy”
So which Church Tribunal or Prelate has declared Fr. O’Leary to be dissident? Or is “dissident” not a term of art but rather one of abuse? Appears very sloppy to me.
The canon lawyer goes on to make economically illiterate statements about interest. The linked article is not much better.
The development of interest on capital is a remarkable development in human civilisation. It has changed human civilisation and lifted many from poverty – global humanity is wealthier for it. Dr Blosser probably can put down his modest home to the fact that he could get a mortgage. Interest is merely the price in the trade in liquid capital. Like all trade both sides benefit. To adopt blanket probations on this price just stops the trade. Result: we are all poorer. Thus any prohibition on the price of capital results in poverty. Deeply immoral I would have thought.
The Church adopted the wrong position on interest. Trying now after the evidence is to claim that the prohibitions where only limited too exploitative interest (whatever that means) is cute but won’t wash.
As to human nature being unchanging. Just look at the evidence. Two million years ago Dr Blosser’s relatives where nomadic and dying on average at the age of twenty. Most of his forbears where not raised by immediate blood relatives but in small extended kin groups. Now most humans want to stay put and change nature around them – but this is relatively new. Thus human nature does change but so slowly as to be hard to see in any 100 of any generation.
Interesting on sexuality the Church has had multiple positions – which will continue to evolve and change. To assert Humanae vitae is the unchanging summit is tempting fait.
Atiyah, You might want to read "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterson which argues against your proposition. While we might share common DNA with some creature that lived 2 million years ago, doesn't make it our relative. If nothing else, the fact as far as science can tell every living thing has DNA seems merely to indicate that all living things shared a Creator, nothing more.
I liked the 'Free Penny Stock Picks' ad attached to this thread - quite appropriate. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the nature of money itself isn't something that stays constant. Consider an ancient or medieval economy where it is decreed that gold coins minted by the king are the only legal means of exchange, and there are exactly a million gold coins. Under these circumstances, the entire worth of the goods of the country cannot be more than a million gold coins, since nothing else is available for valuing this wealth. the worth of a gold coin will then be one-millionth of the value of all wealth in the country, regardless of whether these goods increase or decrease. In these circumstances, it is arguable that changing monetary interest on a loan will usually be unjust, since the interest even in times of economic growth will necessarily exceed the average rate of growth of productive assets. I wouldn't be surprised if some such conception of money - corresponding with actual economic practice - underlies past condemnations of usury (I don't know). Now, however, money has no physical existence for the most part, and is designed to be largely an accounting unit that represents a given parcel of goods. Charging interest on this kind of money can be defended as simply being rewarded for the increase in wealth that a standard parcel of goods can produce, a defence not available for the other form of money. If church teachings condemning usury were talking about different kinds of money from the money that currently exists (as is undoubtedly the case), you can't just apply them straightforwardly to current conditions; you have to figure out the principles behind them and apply the principles to the economic situation that obtains. with contraception however there is no parallel difference; contraception is the same sort of act now as it was in the time of St. Augustine, it is just that it works a bit better and is less uunpleasant (no more crocodile dung).
Paul
You had a missing link in your post.
Here is a link to Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man”:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/
martin.ward...asting_man.html
I have skimmed over Chapters I & II of Part one – no very convincing I must say. It seems a bit dated to me. Of course we can model the evolution of species usually in computers that speed the passing of time.
It is however deeply ironic that you argue against change being part of the human condition (both genetically and biologically and culturally) by citing shared DNA.
It is true that Dr Blosser would not recognise his relatives of 2 million years ago, but they would recognise each other 1 million years ago.
Human nature does change it is just very very slow. More importantly our knowledge about human sexuality has improved considerably. Human knowledge is dramatically changing.
Remember the position advanced is that “human nature is a constant (in this case human sexuality) whereas other things change (except the Church which remains unchangingly right). Thus changes in prohibitions against usury aren’t really changes at all we [or you] just merely misunderstand what the prohibition was in the first place. Hence all the arguments over the hierarchy of the importance of the numerous pronouncements by the Church. They “never said what you say they said” and “they were never that important” and “never applied to all interest charged in all circumstances just that which is exploitative – and what reasonable Christian could disagree with that?”
It’s all very Soviet not to mention economically unsound on the interest issue per se.
As an aside the early prohibitions did not apply to Jews who could charge interest and often supplied necessary capital. English Monarchs sometimes accessed this capital by force and in return sometimes protected the Jews but only sometimes. Unfortunately Jews also faced the occasional roundings-up (like in York) because the populace believed they were hogging all the money when if fact they could not be shaken down anymore. This is a minor theme of anti Semitism to this very day. This directly results from the deeply immoral prohibitions on usury. Had these prohibitions not applied then Christian businessmen would have been in the money lending game earlier.
Islam also has prohibitions against usury which causes all sorts of contortions in their banking systems. Alas they do not have a Pope to retire the idea.
I never claimed that infallibility was involved in papal teaching on usury -- this is a complete red-herring.
All I claim is that Humanae Vitae has as good a chance of turning out to be wrong as the very authoritative papal decrees against usury in the 16h century.
As to the big gun of "a canon lawyer", the good priest has a licentiate, not a doctorate in Canon Law. The issue is one not of canon law only but of theology, and on this front his remarks are most unimpressive. As to church history and economic history, he does not seem to have read Noonan or be aware of the precise issues. (I speak as one with both a licentiate and a doctorate in dogmatic theology.)
'(I speak as one with both a licentiate and a doctorate in dogmatic theology.)'
[Applause. Deep bow. More applause. Acclaim. Deeper bow. Roses strewn about the stage. Applause ...]
Gawsh, Pa, ah shur feel stoopid, don't yew? Ah ain't got no licen-tit-ay or no dog-o-matic whatever. Sheee-yat, I'm just plum dum. [Spits stream of chewing tobacco in tin cup.] Guess we got some learnin' to do. Yessir.
Dave:
Come on mate – you are better than that – make a meaningful contribution.
Jeb/Ralph:
Apparently the masquerading isn’t limited just to dresses.
First rule of humour – be humorous.
I refuse to believe you are thick unless you prove otherwise.
John:
An interesting theory – we will unpick it later.
Our canon lawyer friend, hauled on as an authoritative rebuttal of me and of the great John Noonan, shows a poor grasp of theology and also of the issues raised in my letter as relayed to him by pb, in the way he bandies about the term "infallibility".
I don't usually point to my academic credentials, but in this case it was regrettably necessary in view of the absurd manner in which pb trots out "a canon lawyer" as the ultimate riposte.
Let us take a closer look at that riposte:
"As to usury and its comparison to Humanae vitae: the dissident [INCORRECT: one who calls for discussion and openness to the necessity of development is not a dissident] priest makes a false analogy [an analogy I borrowed from John Noonan, the foremost expert on the matter]. Because the papal bulls against usury were obviously conditioned by the times and circumstances in which they were promulgated [in fact they were out of step with the economic thinking and practice of their times: they were conditioned by tradition, bt the past -- somewhat like HV -- though in fact tradition is much less supportive of HV than it is of those anti-usury bulls] does not at all take away their supreme authority at the time of their application. [Supreme authority that was undercut immediately by theologians and subtle Jesuits, though the simple faithful had to believe that they were in mortal sin and excommunicated if they continues the proscribed business practices; in any case no one is questioning the authority of the bulls. HV also has supreme authority. The question is whether or not the bulls were mistaken.] That is, economic circumstances change, and at the time of the Popes mentioned [by him], usury was the means of ruining any number of people, especially the poor [This was not the motivation of the bulls, which were not directed against usurious practices of this kind, but against what would not be considered fair and normal financial practice; here your canon lawyers makes an a priori piece of special pleading -- has he really studied the matter in any detail?]. And such avarice on the part of lenders is seriously sinful. Times have changed; yet I would not say, quoting from [his comment], "normal banking practices we now find totally innocent," for we Catholics do not find them so. [So now he changed tack and claims that the Church still condemns normal banking practices. If so, he is in conflict with his conscience if he allows a bank to pay interest on the money he had lodged there. This is again an aprioristic adhoc reasoning that cannot stand, comparable to Card. Dulles argument that the Church still believes slavery to be compatible with natural law. When did you last here the Vatican condemning banks for taking interest or for giving interest?] Justice still needs be applied. [Who ever denied this? Such straying from the point is not what one expects from a well trained canon lawyer.]
Atiyah,
I could not resist poking at what I perceived to be Fr. O'Leary's vanity. Yet evidently Father has done his homework on this issue. I will not pretend to make a meaningful contribution to the topic of usury. It is far beyond my competence; I am trying to learn by listening. Just when PB's canon lawyer appears to seal the case, along comes O'Leary to make me think on it some more.
"But when it comes to contraception, here we are dealing not with time-related variables, but with the constancy of human nature and the essence of the sexual act -- constants, not variables (as with economics and banking practices)."
Here is an arguable point. However, note that church teaching has also changed on matters that are not time-related, such as the right of a human being to reduce another to slavery.
Nor is church teaching on contraception and abortion monolithic and consistent across the 20 centuries. Church determination as to what belongs to the essence of human nature change all the time, in light of changing understanding.
"they explain the different attitudes of he Church in condemning at one time, and at another authorizing, the practice of taking interest on loans, by the difference of circumstances and the state of society." However, according to Noonan, that apologetic explanation does not cover the facts of the case.
"the Popes of the 16th century were indeed "determining a disputed point of natural law"; for they were judging it against nature to ruin one's neighbor -- easily done during that time (just read the history of the Jews in Europe) -- by making a living off interest." There seems to be an objectionable anti-semitic reference here. The papal teaching is not directed at greed. The Roman Catechism of that time puts it plainly: "Whatever is received beyong the principal and that capital which is given, whether it be money or whether it be any other thing which can be purchased or eseimated in money,is usury".
"The Popes' authority in condemning this is not diminished nor to be seen as lacking infallibility, simply because with the changing of the times and with economic circumstances, loaning at interest became something far less likely to ruin one's neighbor, but became far more regulated, as well as the rights of protection being recognized for the one making the risk of loans." In obedience to the pope the bishop of Augsburg threatened to suspend any priest who absolved a man putting out money at 5 percent. There is NO suggestion in the papal bulls that the practice of lending at interest is condemned only because of the possibility of avaricious abuse or because it was not as well-regulated as it would later become. Rather the Bible is quoted: "Lend, hoping nothing thereby".
"This change of circumstances (with deepening understanding of economics and justice in the market place) with the attendant change of the Church in these matters does not at all relativise the Church's position on contraception. That's simply a non sequitur."
On the FORMAL question of magisterial authority it is not a non-sequitur. We see papal bulls of the highest authority opposed to modernizing interpretations of the tradition by theologians, then circumvented by themselves being reinterpreted by the theologians, and in the end abandoned by the Pope himself. On the formal level there is nothi
On the formal level there is nothing to prevent this happening to HV.
If there is a MATERIAL diffence due to the quite other nature of contraception as opposed to usury, this is another argument. As already pointed out, the issue of slavery might be invoked as providing a closer analogy on this point since the nature of slavery cannot be considered not to be connected with the essence of humanity.
And of course what lends greater force to the analogy between the "reception" aka rejection of the Papal Bulls on usury and the reception of Humanae Vitae is the fact that in practice the latter has been very widely rejected by the faithful and their clergy (not to mention the spin put on it by the Episcopal Conferences, whose views were never rejected by the Vatican).
The Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave this definition of 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."
Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Vix Pervenit (1745), says: "The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract [mutuum]. 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."
A mutuum is "a loan of a fungible, i.e., perishable, nonspecific good, whose use consisted of its consumption" (New Catholic Encyclopedia; all quotes above taken from David Palm's "The Red Herring of Usury").
So Lateran V and Benedict XIV say the same thing. Neither absolutely forbid interest taking, but only usury, which are not identical.
Father O'Leary has *asserted* that the popes writing between Lateran V and Benedict XIV impose a much more restrictive definition to usury, so that it encompasses any and all interest taking in any and all situations (allegedly placing themselves in contradiction to Lateran V, not to mention the allowances in both Old and New Testaments.) Atiyah has in other threads said that Fr. O'Leary regularly trumps the regulars on this forum regarding this issue of usury. But I note again that he has done no more than *assert* that certain popes have a more restrictive view of usury than Lateran V and Benedict XIV. But he has not demonstrated this. The burden of proof is on him and he has yet to offer any proof. Assertions don't cut it; it's hard evidence that counts. If Father has the evidence, fine, we can interact with that. But let's not give his mere assertions more credence than they deserve.
"However, note that church teaching has also changed on matters that are not time-related, such as the right of a human being to reduce another to slavery."
Has she? Last I heard, she not only didn't object to, but even approved of incarcerating criminals for a period of time and forcing them to work jobs while serving their sentence, even if their sentence is life in prison. Here in the United States, we practice that kind of slavery, hardly distinguishable from the slavery that past Oecumenical Councils have decreed as acceptable punishment for brigands, heretics or militant Muslims.
I never claimed that infallibility was involved in papal teaching on usury -- this is a complete red-herring.
Get your herring sushi straight from your herrish fish bait, Father "Spirit." Whoever suggested you claimed papal teaching on usury was infallible? A man would have had to be insane to suggest that, especially for a priest such as you who doesn't really think anything a pope says is ever infallible. Ha! Rather, you were clearly trying to leverage the fallibility of Humanae Vitae from the de facto recognized lack of infallibility of the medieval papal decrees on usury, thus mixing apples and oranges.
Atiyah,
Welcome back. Nice to hear from you again. By the way, my friend: You're crazy. But we both knew that. =)
You write: "So which Church Tribunal or Prelate has declared Fr. O'Leary to be dissident?"
O'Leary declares his own dissent from Rome in nearly every comment he makes. It's a sad day when a man has to wait on the authority of a Vatican tribunal to tell him who the dissenters are, for some tribunal to stick labels of "dissenter" on persons for him to be able to recognize who a dissenter is. Especially with one so ebulliantly flamboyant as Fr. "I-AM-the-'Spirit'-of-Vatican-II" O'Leary!
John Lamont, you're brilliant. Love your stuff.
"Spirit," what's this?
As to the big gun of "a canon lawyer" ...
Are you trying to turn this into a discussion about sex again? Fr. Putnam who serves on our diocesan tribunal is one of my canon lawyer friends near at hand. But you are most unkind to him when you write:
The issue is one not of canon law only but of theology, and on this front his remarks are most unimpressive.
Unkind, because, as I said, he is not the canon lawyer who wrote the response to you, but the one who relayed the response. I suppose we all get a little over-excited sometimes and don't read too carefully, especially when the topic seems to be ourselves.
And then you write:
(I speak as one with both a licentiate and a doctorate in dogmatic theology.)
WELL, then ... Aren't we all preened and bedizend with our peacock feathers and such! I wasn't aware that you put so much stock either in the authority conferred by ecclesiastical degrees or the size of a scholar's gun. But then, I guess I could have been wrong about you.
I would like to point out that under any circumstances this example of usury doesn't do for Noonan and O'Leary what they wish.
Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that one or more sixteenth century popes condemned as usurious all interest taking under any circumstance. In this case there would be a contradiction with the prior magisterial teaching of Lateran V, which conciliar teaching was itself right in line with the prior teaching of such approved theologians as Aquinas and Scotus. If sixteenth century theologians raised questions about these (allegedly) absolute papal restrictions, they had good grounds on which to do so since a less restrictive teaching of an ecumenical council was already "on the books". But in any case the balance was restored with the teaching of Benedict XIV (and subsequent authorities.) At most the sixteenth century popes in question erred in their strictness, although again we have not been given access either to their writings or to the circumstances in which they wrote (and to be honest, I certainly don't trust Noonan to give us the unbiased scoop on that.) But even Father O'Leary has admitted that their teaching was not proposed infallibly and so even a worst case interpretation poses no threat to the Church's claim.
The problem for Noonan/O'Leary is that there is no principle connection here with a magisterial teaching like contraception. For they are unable to cite any magisterial teaching, nor even of any approved theologian, that contains any hint of the relaxed position they champion.
A closer parallel would, I think, be quite unacceptable to Fr. O'Leary. It would be more legitimate, taking their view of the usury issue, to argue that the twentieth century pope(s) have created inappropriate restrictions in matters like capital punishment, slavery, religious liberty, etc. and that subsequent popes will clarify their restrictions in line with the prior Tradition. A traditionalist would have a better case using Father's interpretation of the usury issue to argue that subsequent popes will uphold the Church's perennial teaching that capital punishment is not intrinsically wrong, that slavery is not intrinsically contrary to the divine and natural law, and that men do not have a natural right to promulgate religious errors in public. Now I beg you not to assume simplistically what my position is on those three issues. Each is interesting and perhaps my position on all three would surprise you. All I am saying here is that each could potentially be seen as a true parallel to the Noonan/O'Leary presentation of the usury issue, whereas contraception and womens' ordination most certainly cannot.
In fact, I don't know what the sixteenth century popes specifically taught on usury and why. But I do know that, regardless, this example doesn't help the Noonans and O'Learys of the world to get to their goal, the overthrow of the Church's teaching on contraception.
"As to usury and its comparison to Humanae vitae: the dissident [INCORRECT: one who calls for discussion and openness to the necessity of development is not a dissident]...
Nonsense. True, "One who calls for discussion and openness to the necessity of development" is not NECESSARILY a dissident, but we all know -- as you do -- what the truth of the matter is in this case: you dissent from Catholic Church teaching on the most fundamental matters, from Christology, to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, to moral doctrines.
... priest makes a false analogy [an analogy I borrowed from John Noonan, the foremost expert on the matter].
The analogy becomes a false analogy when it is submitted to the purpose of the false end you intended it to serve of leveraging dissent from Humanae Vitae because, as you wished to see the matter, it was to be demoted to the same contingent, non-infallible level as the medieval decrees on usury. There is nothing wrong in seeing the language of the decrees as having analogous features in itself, as Noonan points out.
... Because the papal bulls against usury were obviously conditioned by the times and circumstances in which they were promulgated [in fact they were out of step with the economic thinking and practice of their times: they were conditioned by tradition, [by] the past -- somewhat like HV -- though in fact tradition is much less supportive of HV than it is of those anti-usury bulls]...
This isn't quite tight, is it. You're all over the place here, maybe trying to do too much. That any ecclesiastical decrees should be conditioned by tradition is unexceptional: it's what we should expect. Neither does this fact, nor the fact that traditional Catholic values may have been at odds with certain economic views at the time, detract in the least from the writer's claim that medieval papal bulls against usury were conditioned by the times and places in which they were promulgated. They obviously were. The business of loan sharking was economically ruining individuals.
The additional assertions about tradition supporting HV less than the medieval anti-usury bills is bald, unsupported (and, I would content, unsupportable) assertion. HV is firmly grounded in natural law and ancient Church tradition running back even to Jewish religious law.
... does not at all take away their supreme authority at the time of their application. [Supreme authority that was undercut immediately by theologians and subtle Jesuits, though the simple faithful had to believe that they were in mortal sin and excommunicated if they continues the proscribed business practices; in any case no one is questioning the authority of the bulls. HV also has supreme authority. The question is whether or not the bulls were mistaken.]
Here again, Father O'Leary, you're a trifle scattered, aren't you. Look, there's a difference between positive (human) and natural law, right? (Continued ...)
(Continued...) But even positive law can be made with supreme authority. For example, the Council of Jerusalem decreed that Christians in Antioch not only had to abstain from fornication (natural law) but from blood and the meat of strangled animals (positive law). I don't know of any Scottish Catholic who would forego eating his black pudding (made with animal blood) for breakfast on the grounds that it was proscribed by the Council of Jerusalem. Yet it was proscribed with "Supreme Authority." How else can one interpret Acts 15:28--"For it has seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." The point being that supreme authority may decree something under positive law that may not be binding for all time, while something that may or may not be decreed under natural law may nevertheless be binding for all time. Medieval usury laws belong to the former; HV belongs to the later.
...That is, economic circumstances change, and at the time of the Popes mentioned [by him], usury was the means of ruining any number of people, especially the poor [This was not the motivation of the bulls, which were not directed against usurious practices of this kind, but against what would not be considered fair and normal financial practice; here your canon lawyers makes an a priori piece of special pleading -- has he really studied the matter in any detail?].
Have YOU??? And if the motivation of the bulls was "against what would not be considered fair and normal financial practice," how does this prevent the motivation of the bulls from being against usury as a "means of ruining any number of people, especially the poor"? How are these logically disjunctive? (Continued ...)
(Continued...) ... And such avarice on the part of lenders is seriously sinful. Times have changed; yet I would not say, quoting from [his comment], "normal banking practices we now find totally innocent," for we Catholics do not find them so. [So now he changed tack and claims that the Church still condemns normal banking practices. If so, he is in conflict with his conscience if he allows a bank to pay interest on the money he had lodged there. This is again an aprioristic adhoc reasoning that cannot stand, comparable to Card. Dulles argument that the Church still believes slavery to be compatible with natural law. When did you last here the Vatican condemning banks for taking interest or for giving interest?]
Whoa! Before you make a slave owner out of Cardinal Dulles, let's hold your horses and just stop. Here he's quoting YOU, Father, isn't he, where you had written: "... normal banking practices we now find totally innocent"; AND he is questioning this statement. But from his questioning of your statement, you leap to the conclusion that he must be condemning the charging of interests on ordinary bank loans, from which you again leap to the analogy that this would be like Fr. Cardinal Dulles believing slavery compatible with natural law. But one thing at a time, Fr.-Shot-Gun-Joe. What about anything this writer says makes you assume he might believe the charging of interest on an ordinary bank loan would be sinful. I don't see a hint of this anywhere. What I do see is an unwillingness to assume that all modern banking practices carte blanche above reproach. Are all banking practices above reproach? Are all banking investments morally above reproach? How does raising questions such as these involve an aprioristic adhoc sort of reasoning that leads to the absurd conclusions you suggest?
Justice still needs be applied. [Who ever denied this? Such straying from the point is not what one expects from a well trained canon lawyer.]
Oh, come off your high horse, pull up to the table, and sit down on your humble ass like the rest of us! The man asked good questions, raised legitimate objections, scored sound points. Take them.
Wait a minute...
Cardinal Dulles DOES believe that slavery is compatible with natural law. He said so recently in First Things.
I rather think a good argument can be made that the Church has gotten kind of lax and lazy about usury. I certainly haven't seen anything from the Church teaching that usury is NOT a sin.
I think that if your neighbor comes to you and says, "I've lost my bankcard and my wallet and I need to buy a plane ticket for $300. Can you help me?"; if you reply, "Sure, but you'll have to give me $400 by next Wednesday," you're committing a mortal sin. A lot of Catholic don't know this or take it seriously. Bad catechesis, not a change of doctrine!
I wonder if Fr. O'Leary disagrees.
The Church has proposed that there may be some things that LOOK like usury, but aren't. Just as many of her respected teachers propose that there are some things that LOOK like lies, but aren't.
Could there be some things that LOOK like contraception (e.g., a homosexual fornicator using a condom to avoid transmitting AIDS) but aren't? Maybe. That doesn't mean that the teaching has or will change.
Wow, hard to believe I suppose. Very crazy: Very sad too! Heresy, deception, perversion and blasphemy are four words that come to mind. This 'spirit of the age' is within the Catholic Church too: so what are we facing? Conflict. More conflict...
A humble recommendation: The Catholic Church (in the U.S.A. especially - maybe Canada too) should (to begin with) end (terminate) any 'ecumenical relations' with the Episcopal Church, if this has not yet happened. Ecumenical 'efforts' or 'talks' with groups like this are probably futile and dangerous, in my opinion.
--
Integrity - "Wednesday, June 14, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jesus is the Gay Agenda says Bishop Gene Robinson Bishop
Gene Robinson of New Hampshire this morning declared that ‘Jesus is the homosexual agenda in the Episcopal Church, I believe that with my whole heart’. Addressing a press conference organized by the Human Rights Campaign and Integrity (the LGBT witness in the Episcopal Church), Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, said ‘I am a beloved child of God because of the action of God in my own life… My agenda is to speak the witness that I know of this living, loving God.’
‘Jesus rarely pointed to himself but to God’, he continued, ‘that’s what homosexuals in the Church want to do.’ He agreed with those who say we are fighting for the soul of the Church – will this be a church with walls, threats and schism, or a Church of the ‘inclusive love of God in which every baptized person hears what Jesus heard at his baptism, ‘You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased.’?’"
http://www.integrityusa.org/gc2006/
=
Also:
http://www.christianpost.com/art...on/church/
1.htm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/51006.../5100640.stm?
ls
"US Church defiant on gay bishops - Members of the US Episcopal Church have rejected a demand from the worldwide Anglican Church that they stop appointing gay bishops."
http://today.reuters.com/news/ne...&
archived=False
"New US church leader says homosexuality no sin"
-
"Richard John Neuhaus writes:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthe...hesquare/?
p=285
The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians."
==
"Jesus is the Gay Agenda says Bishop Gene Robinson"
Nope.
==
"The Catholic Church (in the U.S.A. especially - maybe Canada too) [...]"
Maybe Canada?! No, make that: 'especially Canada'.
==
"It's a sad day when a man has to wait on the authority of a Vatican tribunal to tell him who the dissenters are, for some tribunal to stick labels of "dissenter" on persons for him to be able to recognize who a dissenter is"
So true, thanks. A very sad day indeed....
==
Paul:
"The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians."
==
Paul Borealis | 06.20.06 - 8:37 pm | # "
IMHO to the contrary - good for the Episcopals to elect this smart,carismatic bishop.A former scientist, a devout Mother and wife.
What is the sad part in your eyes?
This is exactly where the Catholic Church has to go - we ought to be able to ordain such wonderful leaders ourself.
The days of the all male highly SSA inflicted catholic geezer clergy hopefully will be numbered.
Unity of the Christians has to mean ordination of the most talented and capable.
I firmly believe that the average catholic will not much longer accept the current situation - a situation that is today totally out of sync with all our day to day reality.
Yes 100 or even 50 years ago one could sell the average believer on the notion that women are just not cut out for priesthood. At a time when we as a nation send women into combat to risk their lifes we are not exactly able to understand the line of argument handed down from grandfathers generation.
What I find sad Paul, is that fine people like yourself can not get joy out of the professional and spiritual success of a fine fellow sister in christ.
Pb assertions that I am a Christological heretic are based mainly on his own totally biased essay on my "hottub Christology". He also asserts that I am a pantheist!
Card. Avery Dulles admits that Noonan's account of usury is accurate and fair. I am very honored when people say "the Noonans and the O'Learys" -- or rather, embarrassed.
Of course usury in the sense of abusive moneylending is sinful, but in the context of our discussion usury means money-lending that would NOT by current Roman Catholic standards be accounted sinful and that WAS accounted sinful by Pius V and Sixtus IV.
Noonan rightly quotes this against those who "state or assume that it is unheard of arrogance for theologians to criticize or correct a solemn authentic statement of Catholic moral teaching as to the requirements of divine or natural law issues after investigation, refection, and prayer by a pope" such as Humanae Vitae (Changes in Official Catholic Moral Teaching, p. 80).
" The Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave this definition of 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." "
Quite, but the theologians who appealed to this to justify late sixteenth century banking practices were OVERRULED by the Popes of the time.
"By 1585 there was a development of medieval theological principles, which contrary to their restrained used by medieval theologians [including I suppose Lateran V], subverted the usury theory, and in which a controversy between modern theologians needed decision."
Theologians defended the profits of exchange banking on the basis of "virtual transportation" of money from one place to another; another theory defended them as made in the purchase of money as a commodity --- and if money could be purchased at a profit as a commodity in foreign exchange transactions, it was an easy step to justify its purchase at a profit as a commodity in loans.
Pius V ruled that an annuity "can in no way be created except of immovable property... fruitful by nature". Any agreement by the seller to pay interest in determined in advance was null. "It was established on the basis of divine law that only annuities substantially distinct from loans could be purchased at a profit". Here then in the official interpretation of the medieval principle of Lateran V. It goes against theologians like Soto, whose view was ultimately to triumph. Pb would say Soto was a dissident, but in reality he contributed to the mature development of Catholic doctrine.
"Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Vix Pervenit (1745), says: "The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract [mutuum]. 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." "
In what way is this not a condemnation of ordinary banking practices?
"So Lateran V and Benedict XIV say the same thing. Neither absolutely forbid interest taking, but only usury, which are not identical."
But as we have seen, they do condemn ordinary interest taking on money not regarded as a fungible etc. and in which the creditor desire more than he has given.
"Father O'Leary has *asserted* that the popes writing between Lateran V and Benedict XIV impose a much more restrictive definition to usury, so that it encompasses any and all interest taking in any and all situations (allegedly placing themselves in contradiction to Lateran V, not to mention the allowances in both Old and New Testaments.)"
They condemned lending money at interest in the ordinary sense of modern banking -- only Jews were allowed to do it.
"Atiyah has in other threads said that Fr. O'Leary regularly trumps the regulars on this forum regarding this issue of usury. But I note again that he has done no more than *assert* that certain popes have a more restrictive view of usury than Lateran V and Benedict XIV."
Did I say that? Perhaps I should have said that they all had the same restrictive view of usury which has proved wrong.
The Cath Enc (old edition) points out that Benedict XIV's strictures against money-lending were promulgated only in Italy and were never intended to be infallible. Of course the Cath Enc recognizes that these teachings like those of Lateran V are no longer the teaching of the Church in the 20th century.
The Cath Enc also adds: "The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans, even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not promulgated any doctrinal decree on the subject. See the replies of the Holy Office dated 18 August, 1830, 31 August, 1831, 17 January, 1838, 26 March, 1840, and 28 February, 1871; and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11 February, 1832."
In short the teaching has changed.
Vix Pervenit (1745) teaches:
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.
III. 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. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.
IV. There are many different contracts of this kind. In these contracts, if equality is not maintained, whatever is received over and above what is fair is a real injustice. Even though it may not fall under the precise rubric of usury (since all reciprocity, both open and hidden, is absent), restitution is obligated. Thus if everything is done correctly and weighed in the scales of justice, these same legitimate contracts suffice to provide a standard and a principle for engaging in commerce and fruitful business for the common good. Christian minds should not think that gainful commerce can flourish by usuries or other similar injustices. On the contrary We learn from divine Revelation that justice raises up nations; sin, however, makes nations miserable.
V. But you must diligently consider this, that some will falsely and rashly persuade themselves-and such people can be found anywhere-that together with loan contracts there are other legitimate titles or, excepting loan contracts, they might convince themselves
convince themselves that other just contracts exist, for which it is permissible to receive a moderate amount of interest. Should any one think like this, he will oppose not only the judgment of the Catholic Church on usury, but also common human sense and natural reason. Everyone knows that man is obliged in many instances to help his fellows with a simple, plain loan. Christ Himself teaches this: "Do not refuse to lend to him who asks you." In many circumstances, no other true and just contract may be possible except for a loan. Whoever therefore wishes to follow his conscience must first diligently inquire if, along with the loan, another category exists by means of which the gain he seeks may be lawfully attained.
The implications of the church's development of doctrine on the question of usury for other controverted questions are explored here http://www.womenpriests.org/trad...io/
informed.asp
The statements of the new Primate of the Episcopalian Church on the goodness and naturalness of same-sex orientation are completely in the spirit of the Gospel and hold out healing to those crippled by homophobic prejudice.
Hi Grega
I hope you did not think I wrote this:
"The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians."
It was written by Richard John Neuhaus, not I. He is a hard-working Catholic priest and advocate of Christian ecumenism. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I provided the link to his comments.
My position was that the Catholic Church should terminate all 'ecumenical relations' with the Episcopal Church. I think ecumenical 'efforts' or 'talks' with anti-Christian (pro-homosexual sex) liberal groups ('churches') like this are dangerous and misleading to those weak or poorly educated in the Faith. Also, it is a huge waste of time and resources. Efforts towards authentic unity need to be directed towards the Eastern Orthodox churches, or the SSPX.
I figure the discussion is not really about 'usury'. It is about if "Jesus is the Gay Agenda ", or not. I say no. The 'Gay Agenda' illness in the Church is one manifestation of the new heresy, and the dark shadow of the Antichrist.
==
"This is exactly where the Catholic Church has to go - we ought to be able to ordain such wonderful leaders ourself."
We would, on the highway to Hell...
"The days of the all male highly SSA inflicted catholic geezer clergy hopefully will be numbered."
Da Rulz?
==
Whether you call it "development" or "volte-face", no one seriously denies that there is a huge change in church teaching on usury between Lateran V-Benedict XIV on the one hand and the last two centuries on the other. How this development is to be assessed from the point of view of dogmatic theology remains an obscure point for the simple reason that dogmatic theologians have focused on the devopment of dogma rather than the development of moral teaching (leaving the latter issue to moralists and canonists who are not the ones most competent to handle the ecclesiological issue).
'The statements of the new Primate of the Episcopalian Church on the goodness and naturalness of same-sex orientation are completely in the spirit of the Gospel and hold out healing to those crippled by homophobic prejudice.'
There you have it. PB was right in observing that 'very little of this has anything to do with rationality and has everything to do with sweet patooties.'
'Perhaps I should have said that they all had the same restrictive view of usury which has proved wrong.' Hmmm ... I wonder. Has in fact the ancient teaching against usury been PROVED wrong? Has the Church issued a doctrinal clarification extolling the "goodness and naturalness" of usury? Or is Jeff onto something in suggesting that the Church has become 'kind of lax and lazy about usury'? It is a point worth considering.
As for "Bishop" Robinson, his comment is revealing:
‘Jesus rarely pointed to himself but to God’, he continued, ‘that’s what homosexuals in the Church want to do.’
"Jesus rarely pointed to himself" -- this line is typical of those who seek a Christian faith that is stripped of Christology. It is also quite false. To be sure, Jesus came to reveal the Father -- in and through HIMSELF: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus points to the Father by pointing to himself, and vice versa. Moreover, Jesus is very often the subject of his own preaching in the gospels -- and not only in the Gospel of John.
So, why does "Bishop" Robinson promote an anti-Christological Christianity? Perhaps because he knows that despite all the attempts to construct a "Buddy Christ" who waves from the main float in the gay pride parade and celebrates "gay marriage", the real Jesus -- the Jesus who called fornication an "evil thing" and judged lustful looking to be an act of adultery (a stoneable offense in those days) -- does not join the gay rights movement in celebrating all things gay. The real Jesus loves the sinner and bids him to "sin no more". Homosexuals in the Church who see their homosexuality, not as a burden upon their conscience, but rather as an intrinsic GOOD to be embraced, cannot bear the sight of the real Jesus.
And if by 'pointed to himself', Robinson refers to a show of vanity and pride on Jesus' part, then it would be more accurate to say that Jesus NEVER 'pointed to himself'. Yet as a theological matter, Jesus never ceased to 'point to himself' -- usually implicitly but quite often explicitly.
1. MADNESS OH THE MADNESS
Dr Blosser declares me mad – ummm not only a philosopher but a psychiatrist with a blog practise – is there no end to the talents. Ah well they say Dr Blosser: madness recognises madness.
But we are making some progress.
2. BEWARE THE DISSIDENT PRIEST
On the declaring Fr. O’leary a “dissident Priest” Dr Blosser now concedes he has no authority for the claim except his own say so. But he is very impatient. He has tried and convicted the Priest but no Church Tribunal/Prelate will carry out the sentence.
What is more his “canon lawyer” unnamed is the one who actually makes the claim having not himself entered into the discussions here to have his views tested or apparently with any first hand knowledge of Fr. O’Leary.
Best to stick to analysis of the ideas rather than unnecessary epithets.
3. THE CHURCH IS ALL OVER THE PLACE ON USURY
Dr Blosser basically concedes Fr. O’Leary’s point. Most Catholic here cannot even agree what the doctrine is or why it existed. Is this supposed to give me confidence that she knows what she is doing on human sexuality when she gets it so wrong on interest?
It seems the trend is this. Initial broad application of the prohibition. Commerce rises and the doctrine is narrowed. It is now appears only to “apply to exploitative interest” whatever that means. Essentially it’s been retired for most purposes although not formally so - does any loopy idea get formally booted in Catholicism?
In response to this sliding about now the claim is that usury concerns the laws of man and in so far as this is consistent with the laws of nature that’s ok but sex concerns the immutable laws of nature, HV is consistent, as has the Church always been on matters sexual. Thus there is no analogy.
A cunning wee move but is doesn’t wash.
But of course Dr Blosser misses the bigger elephant like question.
4. ARE USURY RULES DOPEY AND IF SO WHAT DOES THIS SAY
Using Usury as evidence of an unchanging Church does raise the question about why this odd policy was adopted in the first place. There appears to be something deeply irrational about prohibiting interest. But there must have been a reason for it. We’re told it was to protect the poor which seems on the evidence highly unlikely.
It probably goes like this. Lending money is an example of mercantilism. Agrarian/nomadic societies dislike merchants but nevertheless need them to shift around agricultural surpluses and convert those surpluses to other forms of wealth like money. Societies built on the patterns of nature have a rhythm – merchants unsettle this they break patterns establish new ones and are always buying and selling. From the misfortune of some they can prosper (creative chaos theory). It seems most likely that the prohibition against interest derives from this popular prejudice – charging interest on money is an incidence of mercantilism.
There is some evidence to support this in the story of Jesus and the moneylenders and traders in the temple – and the rich man (presumably a merchant) and the camel through the eye of the needle and entering heaven.
"quite often explicitly" -- of course in the Fourth Gospel he does so all the time, but this does not reflect the speech or actions of the historical Jesus.
The idea that the gay rights movement is evangelical or can be so is by no means a new one -- just as the movements against slavery, racism and antisemitism often presented themselves as basically evangelical.
The new ECUSA Primate's position is sweet reason personified -- the goodness of homosexuality as a godgiven orientation and charism is the truth on which all modern research, all the testimony of gays and their families, all critical theological research and all prophetic discernment arising in Christian communities which have discussed the matter honestly and lovingly, luminously converges.
On usury, some have been arguing as if the nature of money had changed, so that the previous prohibition of usury was not wrong. It is more likely that our understanding of money has changed so that the previous prohibition was based on an incorrect understanding (as the condemnation of homosexual acts is clearly associated with an incorrect understanding of homosexuality as an "anomaly" -- the Vatican's word for it).
On the changing understanding of money, this is interesting, from an encyclopedia: "Most seventeenth-century Europeans knew usury was condemned by God, but many, while not admitting that usury should be legal, were espousing more radical views. Claudius Salmatius wrote a series of books with titles like De Usuris (163
and De Modo Usurarum (1639) rejecting the Aristotelian definition of money as a good that was consumed. He insisted it could be rented. In this he was following Du Moulin’s argument from the sixteenth century. By the early eighteenth century Salmatius’ rejection of the traditional idea of usury was widely accepted. John Locke tried a slightly different argument, though to the same end. Lending at interest for productive purposes, he said, was no different from a landlord sharing the profits of a field with his tenant."
5. SO WHY DID THE CHURCH GO FOR USURY RULES
To be in accord with popular prejudice is necessary especially when seeking converts and trying to establish a new institution. But building any new institution needs wealth and lots of it. Regulation of interest essentially stops ordinary people accessing capital i.e. engaging in risk taking activities that might in some circumstances result in the loss of their family wealth. (Some prods strangely go on about the evils of debt today while borrowing to build super Churches)
Early clerics were very good fundraisers and widows were a good target (Emperor Valentinian takes this up with the Pope in 370). The immediate Pre Christian family lived in extended kin groups and was concerned with producing male heirs (property passed down the male line), thus marriages (and second marriages) to kin (cousins) and widowed kin (not directly blood related – say your brothers widow), adoption and concubines were common – all barred under Gregory I. He also introduced the notion of consent to marry and promoted love marriages and lessened the emphasis on arranged marriages for property purposes. This emphasis on greater individualism attacks the old bonds that prevent the adoption of a new faith and a new way of living.
Thus Church adjusted the mores controlling families and sexuality. The world was ending so heirs weren’t so important, virginity was in and was sexual guilt, the ascetic and monastic life most highly prized, single family dwelling better than multifamily - the combined affect was to make male heirs harder to get. It as been estimated that 40% of families had no male heirs – the early Church was the major financial beneficiary of this. This explains huge Church landholding one-third of all productive land in France by the 7th Century. Similar patterns elsewhere in Europe.
Most medieval land law was hard on long term landholding by ordinary people hence entailed title and reversionary title. The early church faced thieves who eyed her wealth but she did not have a systematic legal problem in landholding for she had the predecessor of the modern trust – the use: for Abbott A for the use of Monks B C D, with a right to resettle the use on new Abbott. Thus land that went into the Church stayed out of circulation.
6. SO WHERE DO WE STAND
A prohibition on interest probably helped shift wealth from ordinary heirless families into the Church to help build her institutions and spread the faith by making most land free from family debts associated with the ‘owner’. Of course such prohibitions would have had little affect on the wealthy who have access to capital. I make no moral judgement as to whether the wealth was better in the hands of families or Church as it appears bequesting the family wealth was largely voluntary.
One could conclude that something that started out as a prejudice at worst or at best a consequence of romanticised view of agrarian society, became extremely useful, and was only dropped when Europe became wealthy in part as an unintended consequence of other Church reforms.
The Economist Deepak Lal has done some interesting writing on the economic impact of the reforms of Gregory I & VII and how they gave birth to capitalism as we understand it. He touches on some of it very briefly in a Cato podcast.
7. DOES USURY PROVE THE CHURCH KNOWS WHAT SHE IS DOING ON SEX
Not for me. It actually raises more questions and doubts – how could she get it so so wrong. I have no vested interest or fetish about proving Catholicism has been unchanging since her founding. In fact I would say the reverse is probably true: Christianity has been marked by extreme adaptability and a responsiveness to social, economic and cultural changes many of which Christianity has itself brought about whether intentionally or not.
Whatever the origins of the usury prohibition the reason for its long persistence in the church seems to have been authority, authority, authority. Rome never backs down if it can help it, as Galileo learned to his cost. Today the church is sleepwalking through another Galileo crisis on issues of sexuality and gender, completely out of sync with contemporary understanding. And the reason is the same: the fear that it will be seen as weak if it allows the needed development in its outlook. The basic evangelical values will become clearer when decoupled from fetishistic, biologistic rules not based on any dialogue or consultation (or in the case of Humanae Vitae based on the rejection of what such dialogue and consultation clearly advocated). This will be a true development of the order found when the church decoupled the concern for social justice from misguided determinations of how money-lending should work. Without it the Church would not have been able to run the network of Credit Unions in Ireland which in the postwar period liberated the poor from the grip of usurers (exploitative moneylenders).
Vix pervenit (1745) was not about loan sharks, according to the Encyclopedia I quoted earlier. It says: "In 1744 Scipio Maffei set off a debate with his three-volume defense of lending at interest, in which he suggested usury at moderate rates was not illicit, even if it was not charitable. This assertion was condemned by a papal encyclical, Vix Pervenit, in 1745. The encyclical reasserted the scholastic condemnation of usury, reinvigorating the tension between moral attitudes toward lending at interest and commercial necessity for doing it." Sort of a Humanae Vitae effect, in short.
John Lamont:
Fr. O’Leary is right – we do have a better understanding of money and economics generally. However the notion of interest was well understood at the time of Jesus. Consider - the Assyrians had a banking system and accounting clay tablets which balanced across accounts in a system that your bank manager would recognise. Likewise for the registration and transfers of interests in land. Likewise import and export houses. Likewise government regulation and taxation of trade. It had the hallmarks of a capitalist system. That was 2000BC. Much of this sort of knowledge Europe had to rediscover.
Jordon Potter:
Criminals are not slaves mate. Face it - slavery as endorse scripturally (and support by natural law – which in the hands of the Catholic Church justifies anything actually) was dumped as an idea. You would rather argue for a consistently held bad idea than concede that it might have been bad and dumped. Are you really that scared of the affect of reason and knowledge on the Church’s teachings on human sexuality – much of which have been retired by the faithful in practise anyway.
Paul (Kirk):
Have you hijacked this thread on the issue of Anglicans and gays? Please note Radtrad Blosserites who started this hijack 
Needless to say I love the ECUSA giving the twin fingers to the bullying Primate of All Nigeria.
Interesting about the Church credit unions in Ireland. Of course the microcredit movement in Africa is an example of the transformative nature of borrowing, paying interest and repaying the loan in order to build a business. The successful repayment releases capital for other businesses. The rate of interest on any loan sends vital information to the borrower – that is the function of prices in a market for money or for shoes. Looks like these modest microcredit schemes appear to be more successful than traditional aid.
When my parents married interest rates where controlled here because lenders might exploit borrowers. Ordinary families struggled to borrow for their first home and much money was borrowed at much higher uncontrolled interest rates from Solicitors and other private lenders. The affect of regulating interest rates to keep them low was that lenders put their money elsewhere and most ordinary borrowers paid more interest overall than they would have had there been no intervention on interest rates.
'"quite often explicitly" -- of course in the Fourth Gospel he does so all the time, but this does not reflect the speech or actions of the historical Jesus.'
The Gospel of John does not reflect the speech or actions of the historicial Jesus -- this according to you and your devilish deconstructionalist scholars, "Spirit". Thank God not according to the Spirit of truth.
Moreover, Jesus makes himself a subject of his own preaching throughout the synoptic Gospels as well. Of course, the Father is our Lord's primary theme in all of the Gospels. Yet to suggest that Jesus points to the Father in order to point us away from himself (thus making Jesus into a merely human prophet, a mere pointer among other pointers) is a tactic of the devil.
'The idea that the gay rights movement is evangelical or can be so is by no means a new one ..'
Evangelical? Aligned as it is with a false Christology that makes Jesus into a merely human prophet and denies that Jesus is the one and only way to the Father? Please. It is from the pit.
' Pb assertions that I am a Christological heretic are based mainly on his own totally biased essay on my "hottub Christology".'
You ARE are a Christological heretic.
It is evident from your agreement with "Bishop" Robinson, who is also a Christological heretic and a purveyor of perversion in the clothing of a shepherd.
It is evident from your agreement with "Bishop" Robinson, who is also a Christological heretic and a purveyor of perversion in the clothing of a shepherd.
Quite a tour de force, Atiyah. Yet it comes down to same tired conclusion: the Catholic Church is all about power and control -- especially power and control over sexuality. And this is apparently so from the very beginning. We can surmise that the apostles themselves were a gang of cynical power brokers in their own day. We cannot trust the Catholic Church on usury, sexuality, or ANYTHING. We certainly cannot trust the New Testament, since it is itself a product of the Catholic Church and her evil, power-mad leaders.
What are we left with? Our precious SELVES. A cause to celebrate, no? Bring on the liturgical dancers, the jugs of kool aid, and the loaves of wonder bread that are only bread, nothing more.
I did not intend to double-post my comment above regarding that wolf in sheep's clothing, "Bishop" Robinson. In fact, it happened quite apart from my control. Very strange. Oh, well, let it stand. Perhaps it needed to be said twice.
And go on ahead, Father O'Leary, mount your pretentious high horse and call me a hateful homophobe. I don't care. I no longer have time or patience to read your pedantic posts that promote Christological heresy and celebrate sexual perversion. I'm with Kathy and others on this blog who have simply had enough.
Plus we've got Atiyah to endure now.
Why can't you guys simply argue, instead of all the cheap shots? (I was going to say hitting below the belt but that would get Ralph smoking again.)
BTW, I would simply point out that as a woman I haven't felt seriously dissed by Dr. Blosser, Chris, Ralph, Charles, Paul, etc. etc. There are exceptions to this on the "right" but only enough to prove the rule. Whereas our progressive brethren rather often seem eager to dispute whether I should even be considered intelligent enough to be in this conversation.
It's ironic, isn't it? The men with the most respect for a woman's point of view are the most "backward?"
The irony is sort of like the Dumb Vinci Code, in which, to prove the Catholic Church's oppression of women and suppression of "the sacred feminine," two middle-aged pedantic guys lecture a woman endlessly.
Isn't it wonderful to live in such topsy-turvy times? Jethro? Are you there?
This isn't straying from the original posting; it addresses what I believe to be at the root of much of the discussion and not a little of the acrimony that seems inevitably to crop up. I have seen similar situations in many forums.
I don't think it's boasting (since I am deliberately anonymous) to say that I am a member of Mensa. The letters column in the "Bulletin," the "official publication" of American Mensa, is full of missives gassing on endlessly written by people who manage to miss the point completely, or simply don't realize that they are not talking about the same issue. For example, the interminable accusations and counter accusations by the "Pro-God" and "Anti-God" factions. They argue endlessly (usually ad hominem) whether God does or does not exist -- apparently never realizing that they have yet to agree on the first question, whether or not God CAN exist. They can never agree, because they are not discussing the same question.
Nuts. A board meeting is about to start, and I haven't made my point. Maybe I can. Bear with me, please.
I think the situation on this blog and many others is that a significant number of commentators do not agree on the basis of natural law. By basing it on the primacy of the Intellect, you will end up a Thomist and agree in substance with Dr. Blosser. By basing it on the primacy of the Will, you will end up a positivist and agree in substance with Fr. O'Leary.
Heinrich Rommen makes the full argument much better than I could in his book "The Natural Law," currently in print. It is "must reading" for trying to understand why we can't seem to agree on anything, and why we seem inevitably to consider the "other side" knaves or fools. It's short and relatively inexpensive, so there's really no excuse for not reading it.
Even better in many respects is "The State in Catholic Thought," but it is currently out of print. I'm working with a group now that may be able to get it back into the public eye, but we're waiting on the outcome of a court case ... and waiting ... and waiting ... ironically, the case has nothing to do with the book, just the publishing company that owns the copyright.
Oops. Gotta go. Besides, something funny is going on with my computer, so if my fist doesn't end up through the screen, I may pontificate more later.
Dave:
Your being melodramatic mate. Usury is clearly dopey (but an interesting notion) and the smartest thing the Catholic Church did was to retire it. Consider the economic forces she helped liberate. She was herself a remarkable economic power which contributed some of the glories of western civilisation.
I actually thought introducing the requirement of free consent for marriage was pretty hot. I am also interested in the earlier formal appearance of romantic love than I ever knew. I am very interested in the Church’s contribution to capitalism (she may have been wrong on usury but right on trade, institutions and law).
This is a marvellously rich and complex endowment. To caricature as either unchanging or flip flopping does a disservice – it’s a much more dynamic process than that. Yes power matters.
Actually I trust her on refugees and illegal migrants – economically and from a human rights perspective she is right. I think she is right on religious liberties being a litmus test for other fundamental freedoms. I like elevating fundamental liberties to the status of the Divinely granted – all the more reason why closed societies need to get with it.
Kathy:
I am neither middle-aged or “progressive” as you would understand the term in America.
Except on one issue.
And I notice you don't disavow being pedantic. Accurately, it seems to me.
Hey thar, Kathy. Jethro, he been passin' out copies of that thar Nigerian bill down at the town hall. Jethro sez all the ladyfolk think it's real fine. They say we should march it on up to the state capitol. I sure do trust dem woman's intooishun. 
8-)
Atiyah, it sounds like you trust the Church when she agrees with modern liberalism.
Of course I meant
Kathy:
would you mind pointing to a particular comment that caused you to say this:
"Whereas our progressive brethren rather often seem eager to dispute whether I should even be considered intelligent enough to be in this conversation."
Pb assertions that I am a Christological heretic are based mainly on his own totally biased essay on my "hottub Christology". He also asserts that I am a pantheist!
If having a bias is a matter of having an angle of vision, my goal is to have the best possible biases; and I am happy to say that I proudly stand by those of my critical analysis of Fr. O'Leary's Christology. Is Fr. O'Leary a pantheist? Formally, of course not, because, as he will point out, he professes the Nicene Creed, just as you and I do. Materially, the question is, what does this mean to him? What does he mean by this Christ who is "one in being with the Father," and so forth? As I show from an analysis of his own writing, his own THEO-logy (theory of God), it's utterly capable of being merged with, to the point of being interchangeable with, the Eastern pantheistic monism of Hinduism or Buddhism. But I guess this is a trifle careless of me. For when speaking of Buddhism, one can hardly speak of "pantheism" at all, where there is no affirmation of any sort of theos. Perhaps one should simply say that Fr. O'Leary is a 'Gnostic' and leave it at that. Whatever his Christianity is, it's not what the common herd thinks it is, and certainly not what the 'crass,' 'wooden' 'doctrinaire' 'strictures' of Rome would compel one to believe. Whatever it is, then, it's something profound, deep, warmly personal, inclusive, and appealing, though only he or one of his elite friends could tell you for sure what it means. Only the Gnostic claims to KNOW. Woo-woo.
I do not think it has been demonstrated anywhere yet that the Church has changed her teaching on usury. Fr. O'Leary and Atiyah have successfully demonstrated that the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned usury, which is defined as taking interest on the loan of a fungible good. Very well. If the Church has changed this teaching, please show us the magisterial document that says that usury is now permitted. The Church now freely permits the loaning of money at interest, you say? Granted. But if money is not a fungible good then it isn't usury to loan it at interest.
But certain sixteenth century Popes condemned as usurious activity that wasn't usurious, you say. Perhaps—although that hasn't been rigorously proven here. I tend to think it was a time of great economic flux and therefore the cases before them were hardly cut and dried. But even if this was so, it would not represent a change in the Church's teaching. As Jeff and Dave have pointed out, circumstances arise as time passes that raise questions in the form, "Does action X really represent an instance of condemned behavior Y?" And it can happen that individual churchmen, even Popes, mistakenly apply the Church's moral teaching to a given, concrete situation. That would be a failing of prudential judgment, not a failing of the infallible teaching office. I would not say it is likely or common, but within the bounds of Catholic belief it is possible.
There are good arguments on both sides whether the Church's criteria for just war have been met in the present conflict in Iraq. Some very prominent churchmen, including two Popes, have said that they have not. I happen to think they are right, although they could theoretically be mistaken. If they could be proven wrong, it would not mean that the Church's teaching on just war has changed.
A recent Pope has said that the death penalty should never be enacted by modern states because they all have the ability to protect society by other means. Although I am no great death penalty supporter, I happen to think in this prudential opinion the Pope ranged beyond his competence. His argument may or may not hold good, but the Church's teaching on the death penalty has not changed.
[to be continued]
The commission set up prior to the publication of Humanae Vitae was to explore a very specific question. Not whether the Catholic Church condemned contraception; that was perfectly well understood. Rather, it was whether the Pill, in creating a perpetual infertile period, was indeed contraception. The Church ruled that it is and it's pretty hard to see how that ruling could be incorrect. And still the Church teaches that contraception is a sin.
And the Church has tacitly (although not explicitly, it seems) acknowledged that many modern monetary transactions are not in fact usurious. Personally, I would argue that she now fails to condemn many modern monetary transactions that are usurious. It is within the bounds of our understanding of the nature of the Church that she does not teach when she ought. But still her teaching, even if rarely sounded today, is that taking interest on the loan of a fungible good is sinful.
The Church also teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The Church teaches that sexual relations are moral exclusively within the bonds of marriage.
The Church teaches that each and every act of sexual intercourse must be open to conception.
The Church teaches that sodomy is in a special category of sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.
There are always going to be individuals who insist on pressing the envelope and asking "Yes, but is action X really an example of the prohibited behavior Y?" And the Church will give answers to these individual questions which, while not per se infallible, are to be received by faithful Catholics with respect and docility. If those answers seem to strike a discord with her prior teaching then certainly we are bidden respectfully to raise the question again.
And when all of these "Yes buts" have been addressed by the Church, even if there are prudential bumps in the road, she will still teach that contraception is wrong, that usury is sinful, and that homosexual acts are too. At the heart of assertions to the contrary is, of course, a loss of supernatural faith.
So, whether applied to homosexuality or women's ordination or what have you, the issue of usury really is a red herring, because it does not represent a contradiction in the Church's teaching.
Oh Canada (my home and native land), you are not angelic. Put on your clothes. When will you look at yourself.... and see your hellish craze? When will you be worthy of your Jesuit Martyrs?
A holy angel appeared in Ontario, saying: 'Fallen, fallen is...'
"Lawyers representing the women in the case said that the ruling represents a last frontier for the homosexual agenda."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...n/
06060712.html
==
I doubt it will be the last frontier for the homosexual agenda. I suspect there is much more to come...
==
Grega, I have no desire to traumatize my delicate female system by reliving the terror of those moments. Look in the archives under Mozart for good samples of Spirit's comments and in very recent posts for Atiyah's.
Honestly, you haven't been as offensive with me. Sorry not to have excluded you from the rude lefties. But honestly I don't think of you as a leftie or as standing anywhere. All I hear is that you are against institutionalized religion. Not too much to go on there.
Kathy
"The Gospel of John does not reflect the speech or actions of the historicial Jesus -- this according to you and your devilish deconstructionalist scholars, "Spirit". Thank God not according to the Spirit of truth."
Actually, yes, according to the Spirit of truth -- Jesus says in the Fourth Gospel that the Spirit will lead you into all truth and that I have yet many things to say to you. The Fourth Gospel itself is among those many things, under the leading of the Spirit.
This is not deconstruction but basic exegesis 101 -- or if you can find a single Johannine commentary that is respected by the mainstream of Roman Catholic scholarship that believes the Johannine discourses are the very words of Jesus I would be happy to read it.
But now we are back to that tiresome fundamentalism debate.
Have you ever taken even one class in biblical studies?
If not, why not?
Of course Jesus is not just a human prophet. "I am the way, the truth and the life". No one is saying the Jesus did not point to himself, but if you trace the tradition back -- to Mark and to the Q source insofar as it can be reconstructed from Matt. and Luke you will see that he did so discreetly and rarely.
Kathy:
I am sorry you find me pedantic – yes I can be. Perhaps if I too watched more American sitcoms I might be as subtle of mind as you are.
I am of course the only person on this thread to attempt an explanation of WHY such a dopey notion of prohibiting all interest on money might be adopted. Please feel free to set out a coherent explanation.
Dave:
If by “modern liberalism” you mean “leftwing” then no. I do favour personal liberty (classical liberalism) highly. I regard it as a prerequisite for any meaningful notion of “human dignity.” The Church uses language a bit strangely in this regard. To her “freedom” is not “true freedom” when people do things that she disapproves of. Thus public policy that prevents people from doing the things she disapproves of does not lessen freedom. I don’t find this very satisfactory reasoning. I think individual freedom is a “job lot.”
Catholics tend to focus on those teaching they agree with and ignore or deemphasise those they don’t. Thus you might be singing from the rooftops her teaching on human sexuality (and therefore be out of step with most Catholics) but ignore the more Christian socialist or at least communitarian view of economic policy which as it happens has been changing as well. Fr. O’leary is probably closer to the traditional Catholic view on economics and is certainly lockstep with the Church on Iraq. Dr Blosser probably less so on her traditional view of economics (but favours latter pronouncements) and sincerely and honourably believes Iraq is in accord with the Just War doctrine.
Yet interestingly only one of the two declares the other to be a bad Catholic or dissident or a hottubber or a heretic or any number of other epithets.
ThomistWannaBe:
“she will still teach that contraception is wrong, that usury is sinful, and that homosexual acts are too. At the heart of assertions to the contrary is, of course, a loss of supernatural faith”
But we know Thomist that most Catholics don’t go along with the Church on contraception. On Usury I suspect most Catholics have never heard of it (most Blosserites here go silent) – if one explained either a complete prohibition on interest or a partial one most Catholics would find it strange. If you explained the economic affect of it they would regard the doctrine as dopey. Certainly most wouldn’t be able to tell you why such a prohibition should be in place. On homosexuality recent Australian research shows that only a minority of Anglicans and Catholics regard homosexuality as immoral. I would love to see you stand in Church and to declare all these individuals to have lost their “supernatural faith.”
Thomist, you can say church teaching on usury or slavery has not changed only if you are prepared to maintain that the church somehow still countenances slavery and disapproves of lending money at interest.
Just now reading the life of Mao by Jung Chang I see how totalitarian leaders kick history into shape with a jackboot. A lesson for all who worship power over truth, submission over the use of critical intelligence.
'Have you ever taken even one class in biblical studies?
'If not, why not?'
"Spirit", you are really showing your true colors here. Your intellectual elitism and arrogant snobbery are unbecoming a priest. Knowledge puffith up, Father.
'No one is saying the Jesus did not point to himself, but if you trace the tradition back -- to Mark and to the Q source insofar as it can be reconstructed from Matt. and Luke you will see that he did so discreetly and rarely.'
Yes, surely Jesus' discreet way of rarely pointing to himself is why the scribes and pharisees were so intent on having him killed.
There was and is nothing "discreet" about Jesus. He is bold. He turns the tables over. "Take up your cross and follow me." He asks us to sell all we have and become his diciples. He tells us that if we prefer any human attachment before him, then we are not worthy to be his disciples.
There precisely is the rub. That gay "bishop" would have us love our sexual impulses more than we love Jesus. His validation of gay sex as a beautiful thing amounts to saying a big NO to Jesus. That dude is a wolf in the sheep pen.
'Catholics tend to focus on those teaching they agree with and ignore or deemphasise those they don’t.'
No, Atiyah, that is precisely what YOU are doing.
And it is precisely what Fr. O'Leary does with his critical historicist deconstruction of the Word of God.
Dave:
The Bishop or “Dude” you are referring when responding to Fr. O’Leary is a women – the new presiding Bishop of the ECUSA.
I thought my statement regarding Catholics adhering to some teachings and de-emphasising or ignoring others was reasonably non controversial. I have never claimed to be consistent with all Catholic teaching. I am pleased you are – tell us how you get on finding an interest free mortgage?
Atiyah, if you insist on ridiculous insults could you at least change them every few days? Or is that too much subtlety of mind for you?
'The Bishop or “Dude” you are referring when responding to Fr. O’Leary is a women – the new presiding Bishop of the ECUSA.'
Uh, sorry, DUDE, but I was refering to Bishop Robinson. He is a man -- indeed a "man's man", if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
And just when I was about to defend your vaunted subtlety of mind to Kathy. What a pity.
By the way, I am thankful to say that usury is not on my already long list of sins.
Obviously my reference to 'that GAY "Bishop"' was not intended for that fine, well-educated, MARRIED lady who is 'the new presiding Bishop of the ECUSA'.
A bit too subtle a reference, I suppose.
Kathy:
For me it is no insult at all if somebody teases you about your taste in music, television, culture etc. it certainly has nothing to do with your gender.
You for example bemoan that you/we 'have to endure' the articulated Atiyah - yet you fail gloriously to engage him/her in a meaningful counterpoint to his/her well reasoned calm delivery.
But I am certainly biased since unlike you, I enjoy Atiyahs well researched, reasoned and articulated contribution immensely and I look forward to each new one.
"GAY" ... "MARRIED"
Hmmm. These days, what was once a clear opposition of terms is not so clear.
So I should clarify that the new presiding pseudo-Bishop of the ECUSA is a LADY married to a MAN, and therefore not gay ... at least not as far as we know.
'I thought my statement regarding Catholics adhering to some teachings and de-emphasising or ignoring others was reasonably non controversial.'
Your statement said nothing about "adhering". The word you used was "focus", which implied theological presentation, not moral behavior.
None of us adhere perfectly to the teachings of the Church. That's why he have the sacrament of Confession, right? Certainly all of us tend to ignore (or inwardly "de-emphasize") the hard teachings of Christ, e.g., love your enemies.
The point is that traditional Catholics do tend to defend the full spectrum of Catholic teaching, even if their personal behavior often falls short. Perhaps that makes us hypocrites. It certainly does not make life easy. Trying to disprove the truth of certain Catholic teachings is, of course, all about making life easy.
Grega, your underlying point to Kathy is well-taken: all of us here are HUMAN. We all have our limitations.
Grega, once again I suggest you please stop presuming to question how I respond to someone else. Mind your own manners, not mine, thanks.
And I'm glad you and Atiyah are getting along so well. Why don't you try engaging him in meaningful debate and see how it goes?
'... yet you fail gloriously to engage him/her in a meaningful counterpoint to his/her well reasoned calm delivery.'
This gives me pause. I just called Atiyah "DUDE". The thought occurs to me that I don't know that Atiyah is, in fact, a dude, or a dudette. I assumed "dude", based on our friend's style of writing. If I am wrong, my apologies for any offense.
Dave, that is the funniest comment I have ever read. You crack me up even more than Mr. Roister-Doister do.
'Dave, that is the funniest comment I have ever read. You crack me up even more than Mr. Roister-Doister do.'
Oh, no, I can't even BEGIN to compete in that arena!
Dave
Ok then "focus" and "adhere" both are valid actually. How you going on the interest free mortgage - make those calls buddy and report back to us
Dave your Church needs you in the defense of and the outlining of natural law theory. There is no more profit to be wrung out of Usury.
Nowadays money always decreases in value from year to year.Therefore interest is perfectly legitimate, because it is tied to the decreasing value of the dollar. The lender must recoup the value of the money lent.
Cost of money + administrative costs + reasonable, marginal profit = interest rate.
Nowadays we talk about usurious rates, but these are on a much different scale.
The main point is that there would be no possibility, in today's economy, of borrowing money, because the lender would inevitably refuse because it would be a losing proposition. This would further impoverish the poor.
This is going to be a bit long. As Dave said elsewhere, if my violation of Da Rulz is egregious, let me know and I'll shut my yap:
Atiyah wrote: [ I am of course the only person on this thread to attempt an explanation of WHY such a dopey notion of prohibiting all interest on money might be adopted. Please feel free to set out a coherent explanation. ]
Well Kathy, the invitation was given to you, but perhaps I can step in here with my own. Atiyah, both you and Fr. O'Leary continue to spin the issue of usury as if it boils down to "prohibiting all interest on money". That's too simplistic and it allows you to caricature the Church's teaching. Here's the most official definition of usury advanced by the Catholic Church: "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" (Lateran V, Session X).
Now suppose I live in the early Middle Ages, in a fairly primitive economy that lacks the broad opportunities for investment that ours does, and I have two hundred bales of cotton in my warehouse. There are really only two things I can do with my cotton, "spend" it (i.e. trade it for another fungible good) or hoard it.
Now suppose my neighbor comes to me and says, "Could I borrow 10 bales of cotton? The family needs clothes and my harvest won't be in until next year. I'll pay you back then." And I say, "Sure, I'll lend you 10 bales. But you'll have to pay me back 12." I'm seeking a gain from my neighbor without work, expense, or risk on my part. That can only be driven from greed and it amounts basically to stealing from my neighbor. And the same holds good for money in an economy in which pretty much my only options are to spend it or hoard it, where there are not ready enterprises in which I can invest it and expect a profit. Thus, as the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"It is right at the present day to permit interest on money lent, as it was not wrong to condemn the practice at a time when it was more difficult to find profitable investments for money. So long as no objection was made to the profitable investment of capital in industrial undertakings, discouragement of interest on loans acted as an encouragement of legitimate trade"
[to be continued....]
Kathy
The ancients had inflation too it isn’t a new invention. That’s why a prohibition on interest is so dopey – no one really wants to lend. And those that can lend (like the Jews lending to Christians for interest) end up becoming rich as there is no capital around.
That last sentence contains a great reason for the Church to condemn usury. Take the example above. I could take my 200 bales of cotton and trade them for other fungible goods. That requires expense, effort, I incur risk, and thus such trading is perfectly acceptable, even if I make a profit. But it's a heck of a lot easier to sit back and loan out my cotton (or wheat, or gold, etc.) at interest, eh? So I milk my neighbor for a gain that does not justly belong to me and I stifle the dynamic trade which makes for a healthier economy. A sin against the individual and a sin against the common good. No wonder, then, that "The action of the Church has found distinguished defenders, even outside her own pale, among the representatives of contemporary economic science. We may mention three English authors: Marshall, professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge (Principles of Economics, I, I, ii, secs. 8 etc.); Ashley, professor at the new university of Birmingham (An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, I, i, sec. 17); and the celebrated historian of political economy, Professor Cunningham (Growth of English Industry and Commerce, I, II, vi, sec. 85, third edition)."
You might find it dopey, although I'm not convinced you really understand the issue. But on the other hand we moderns get used to a lot of dopey things that people of those days knew were truly dopey. They knew, for example, that debasing the currency through the introduction of base metals was a form of theft, while we allow the debasing of the currency through fractional reserve banking and call it progress. (Kathy perceptively touched on this above.) They knew that perpetual rents meant that the land was really owned by the lord of the manor, while we allow the enactment of property taxes and then pretend that we still own our homes and land. So who's dopey?
[to be continued....]
[ On homosexuality recent Australian research shows that only a minority of Anglicans and Catholics regard homosexuality as immoral. I would love to see you stand in Church and to declare all these individuals to have lost their “supernatural faith.” ]
The majority of the self-identifying Catholics here in the U.S. at least also don't believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And the majority don't believe that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals. Atiyah, I don't know how much you know about the Catholic faith, but its objective content is not determined by the majority report of the people in the pew. The Catholic Church's claim is to be directly established by Jesus Christ and to pass on intact the faith and morals that God wished the world to know.
Now make what you will of that claim--we can discuss it like reasonable men if you like--but that is what the Church says of herself. So yes, if someone who claims to be a Catholic does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals then he has a faith problem. He is listening to very different voice that ever whispers "Has God really said......?"
God bless.
Fr. O'Leary wrote: [ Thomist, you can say church teaching on usury or slavery has not changed only if you are prepared to maintain that the church somehow still countenances slavery and disapproves of lending money at interest. ]
Now Father, let's take these in reverse order. You are quite intelligent and perceptive enough to know that this discussion is not about lending money at interest, simpliciter. Certainly I would argue that the Church would still condemn any economic transaction in which a man acquires a gain or profit by the use of a thing which produces nothing, without any work, any expense or any risk (i.e. usury). And I would think you would too, as a matter of simple justice.
But there is still a challenge on the table. Show us the magisterial document in which the Church *approves* of usury, Father, according to the real definition of usury rather than your (and Noonan's) made up one.
With regard to slavery, we always immediately think of our own history and the capturing of native peoples for use as slaves. This form of slavery the Church has always condemned. But historically slavery is a broader category than that, and the word has also been used to describe such things as indentured servitude and the condition created by the remittance of the penalty of death to lifetime servitude for those captured in war.
The examples given by the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm)--of the Mosaic law and the theoretical example of a man voluntarily selling himself into slavery for a lifetime--demonstrate that, using the most broad definition, slavery is not in se contrary either to divine or natural law. And I don't think the Church has taught any differently, the references in Gaudium et Spes and Evangelium Vitae notwithstanding. Since the "modern world" uses slavery in the narrow sense (as shown by Atiyah's objection to Jordan Potter's inclusion of POWs as "slaves"), that is pretty certainly the meaning intended in these modern magisterial documents. No argument from me on what they teach, but also no disharmony with prior magisterial teachings. I agree completely with the same article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that, "while, religiously speaking, [slavery] could not be condemned as against the natural law, and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with disfavour as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its consequences, a positive evil."
'... make those calls buddy ...'
Ok, clearly Atiyah is a dude.
On the subject of usury, if charging mortgage interest is a sin, then I am apparently a victim, not a perpetrator. Unless I am guilty by participating in the system.
'Dave your Church needs you in the defense of and the outlining of natural law theory.'
Sorry, that is beyond my bandwidth at the moment. Our resident Thomist seems to have the matter well in hand.
I am perplexed, though, by 'Dave your Church'. MY Church? Do you mean OUR Church? Confess, Atiyah -- are you a Catholic or not?
I see now that Thomist's comments pertain to the usury issue (quite instructive, I might add) and not natural law theory. In any case, the latter is a huge topic, and there is plenty of information on the web that outlines and defends natural law from a Catholic perspective. What is it exactly that you want to know, Atiyah?
This is a great discussion. here we are having conservative catholics on the one side for the sake of maintaining the superiority of catholic doctrine I assume defending what in essence is ground zero for the utopian socialist ideal society of old lore. Lovely
( You need 10 Balles of hay my friend - heck no problem here you have them- I will just feed my horse some more water this year in anticipation of the 10 Balles next year - there are probably very good reasons my friend why you did not manage to get your 10 balles of hey this year but why worry you will have 10 for me next year.)
Yes I would love to live in such a world.
In todays terms perhaps I could just ask my neighbor to fill up my car this year under the promise that I will do the same for him next year. (which the way the gas prieces go might actually be a great deal for him)
Do not get me wrong. Since most of us give generously to our church, to good causes, to friends in need, you name it -we all in some way make good on what is the underlying concept of this, the request that our Lord had for us to give to the least amoung us. Yes indeed most of us of course do plenty of charity contribution and work without expectation to be ever payed back (besides the IRS part)- the money/time/goods are given for free.
If I understand Thomist correctly he points out the indeed well meaning, positive aspects of a concept like usury - I actually think he is right for the most part.
In the ideal world of my dream I would love nothing more than to believe that this kind of interaction between us could work.
But as we all know 'the risk' is ever so prevalent in most everything we do - thus we collectively will have probably a hard time coming up with examples that would fall in the totally risk free category. which means unfortunatelly that in reality we will keep having to pay principle and interest on our houses and cars for years to come. To bad
Kathy:
all right, let me just point out that all your writing is out there for all of us to read and comment. You claim insult - all I did was sharing with you my personal view that I do not think you have as strong of a case as you think you have - we obviously disagree, no reason to get snippy with me.
"Grega, once again I suggest you please stop presuming to question how I respond to someone else. Mind your own manners, not mine, thanks."
Grega, yes, I think I will get snippy when you tell me I'm overreacting because the same insult would not affect you.
What if someone said you were thinking like a Bonaventuran? You wouldn't be insulted by that, I imagine? But I as a Thomist would find that remarkably hostile.
See?
Or, if someone said I was being dogmatic, that wouldn't phase me at all. Of course I'm dogmatic. But if someone called you dogmatic, I bet you wouldn't like it.
Different people are insulted by different things. So please don't presume to tell me what my reaction should be to someone else.
Medieval bales of hay have NOTHING to do with the condemnations of "usury" by Pius V, Sixtus IV and Benedict XIV -- this was in the LATE-SIXTEENTH and MID-EIGHTEENTH centuries, in response to MODERN conceptions of finance.
The Church did not always condemn the enslavement of native populations; on the contrary several Popes gave the Spanish and Portugese monarchs permission to do just that, first in Africa, then in Latin America. Popes themselves visited slave markets and owned slaves. Leo XIII condemned slavery only when the last country the world to keep it legal -- Catholic Brazil -- had abolished it.
Nicholas V wrote to the Spanish and Portugese rulers in 1452/4: "We grant to you with our Apostolic Authority full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they shall be, and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery". This decree was confirmed, renewed and extended by Callixtus III, Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, Leo X.
Paul III taught that anyone may lawfully buy slaves and forbad local officials in Rome to give slaves sanctuary when they fled to the Capitol or to church property.
Of course you could argue that the enslaved population of Africa deserved what they got for fighting against their Christian colonizers.
In any case that there has been a great development in Church teaching, from occasional condemnation of some kinds of slavery to definitive condemnation of slavery per se (despite biblical arguements against such condemntation) is clear.
"Jesus' discreet way of rarely pointing to himself is why the scribes and pharisees were so intent on having him killed."
If you read Luke you will see that the Pharisees actually warn Jesus against Herod and that it is the high priests who want him killed. It is Matthew who makes the Pharisees the villains of the piece. The matter of who killed Jesus and why is extremely complicated. Mark associates Jesus' condemnation to death with his claim to be Messiah -- but Mark is the very gospel that insists that Jesus usually kept that idea top secret and rebuked disciples who bruited it abroad!
"There was and is nothing "discreet" about Jesus. He is bold. He turns the tables over. "Take up your cross and follow me." He asks us to sell all we have and become his diciples. He tells us that if we prefer any human attachment before him, then we are not worthy to be his disciples." Yes, he speaks as a prophet. But in historical reality Jesus did not make a great noise about his own status. His use of the title "Son of Man", for example (and again whether, how and to what extent he used it in historical fact is not entirely clear) is certainly enigmatic.
"There precisely is the rub. That gay "bishop" would have us love our sexual impulses more than we love Jesus." Nonsense. If Gene Robinson told blacks they were not under the "curse of Ham" (which played such a big role in Catholic tolerance of black slavery) would that means he was telling them love their skin color more than Jesus?
In two of my posts on usury above, Sixtus IV SHOULD BE Sixtus V (Detestabilis avaritia, 1586 -- a document treated as "an aberrant nullity" by the Roman Rota itself in 1602, according to Noonan).
[ Medieval bales of hay have NOTHING to do with the condemnations of "usury" by Pius V, Sixtus IV and Benedict XIV ]
I have already conceded that the prudential application of the Church's teaching to a specific situation is not infallible. Pius V, Sixtus V, and Benedict XIV may have been wrong in this application. This doesn't help you, since the underlying teaching—that usury is wrong—did not change. Similarly, the underlying teachings on sexuality—marriage being reserved to one man and one woman, sex acts outside of marriage forbidden, contraceptive acts forbidden—aren't going to change either, even if you could point to an instance in which they had been wrongly applied prudentially (which you can't).
Now, as to slavery, my study of late has been fascinating. The distinction between chattel slavery (which the Church has always and consistently condemned, contra Fr. O'Leary) and other categories such as the status of conquered peoples in just war (which has also been called slavery, although we would not use that term today) is the key to the whole discussion. Father has gotten some of his facts wrong, but I do not at present have the discretionary time to finish a concise presentation. I will try to get to it by early next week and post it here, even if this thread has been pushed down a bit.
Have a good weekend and especially a holy Lord's Day. God bless.
The Church decreed that the women and children of clerics should be reduced to slavery, on more than one occasion in the middle ages. Why? To bolster celibacy.
This desperate effort to defend the darkest culdesacs of church history serves to further highlight the weakness of arguments from authority on the topics of contraception etc.
Just stepping out of retirement for one moment to say: Is it just me or does the Spirit of Vatican II make precious distinctions about the relative authority of ecclesial documents only when it is to his advantage?
"The Church decreed" is what is used for documents that are supposedly a cause for embarassment to the Church. Would that same designation be used for Humanae Vitae? No, because in that case it was only the Pope who acted, not the Church (which is of course consultative at every level.)
Consistency is all we ask;
give us this day our daily task.
Of course I am putting Humanae Vitae on the same level as the decrees against usury -- that is the whole point of the analogy.
"In any case that there has been a great development in Church teaching, from occasional condemnation of some kinds of slavery to definitive condemnation of slavery per se (despite biblical arguements against such condemnation) is clear."
If the Church definitively condemns slavery per se, why does she say it's okay to imprison criminals and to force them to work while they are imprisoned? Doesn't sound like a definitive condemnation of slavery per se.
As for Fr. O'Leary's analogy of Humanae Vitae and the decrees on usury, even if they're on the same level, it doesn't change the fact that they contain infallible, unchangeable doctrine. Unrepentant homosexuals, of course, won't be able to accept Humanae Vitae, since their abuse of their sexualities is intrinsically contraceptive, but the doctrine of Humanae Vitae remains perennial and unchangeable regardless of what homosexuals personally believe. A Catholic priest's sworn duty is to help them accept the doctrine of Humanae Vitae, not spin fanciful tales that undermine divinely-revealed truths and confirm them in their sin and place their souls in grave jeopardy.
"If the Church definitively condemns slavery per se, why does she say it's okay to imprison criminals and to force them to work while they are imprisoned? Doesn't sound like a definitive condemnation of slavery per se." I think the usual definition of slavery does not count punishment of criminals as slavery.
"As for Fr. O'Leary's analogy of Humanae Vitae and the decrees on usury, even if they're on the same level, it doesn't change the fact that they contain infallible, unchangeable doctrine." Perhaps, but in the precise, specific points that make them controversial they contain doctrine that is non-infallible and in the case of the usury documents clearly mistaken.
" Unrepentant homosexuals, of course, won't be able to accept Humanae Vitae, since their abuse of their sexualities is intrinsically contraceptive, but the doctrine of Humanae Vitae remains perennial and unchangeable regardless of what homosexuals personally believe."
If a constitution homosexual had sex with someone of the opposite sex that would be an abuse of their sexuality. It cannot be measured by where the semen goes, as Blosser seems to imagine. It is inapt to call homosexuality contraceptive because it is not oriented in any way to conception from the start. However, you are right that if the church admitted it was mistaken in insisting that every sexual act must be open to the transmission of life, then some of its case against same-sex sexual expression would be weakened. Also its case for seeing homosexuality as an anomaly rather than a godgiven variant within the spectrum of human sexual and affective endowment,
" A Catholic priest's sworn duty is to help them accept the doctrine of Humanae Vitae, not spin fanciful tales that undermine divinely-revealed truths and confirm them in their sin and place their souls in grave jeopardy." Sorry, Jordan, but haven't you noticed? The faithful have massively rejected Humanae Vitae and priests who mention it in homilies are told to shut up by their bishops. Humanae Vitae is a dead letter, except in inquisitorial circles.
[ I think the usual definition of slavery does not count punishment of criminals as slavery. ]
Right, but the historical use of the word slavery encompassed this as well as other kinds of just title servitude. The same kind of flim flam takes place with usury; the Church has carefully defined it, but it's more useful propaganda to just pretend that it is "interest on money" without qualification. That's why you and Noonan are so sloppy and misleading, Father. I now have Noonan's book in my possession, but a short summary of my findings is still going to have to wait. Gotta feed the family.
Father O'Leary:
You are quite mistaken on one point: Humanae Vitae is not a dead letter. In my parish, which I would admit is not typical of America, the small and medium-sized families, such as mine, have five children. At the Tridentine Rite Mass celebrated every week there is not a shortage of male altar servers (now three of them are under age 15). Many, many families in the parish are bringing their young children to the Tridentine Rite, and are unreservedly accepting both the gift of children and the responsibilities which come with the gift. Among my own personal circle of friends, I can probably name a dozen regular families. In the parish at large, i.e., in Pauline Missal territory, there are easily another 25 families with current-standard large families, just among those I know because I am a school teacher.
We accept the teachings of Holy Mother Church. We love Her as the bride of Christ and want to live according to Her teachings, given to her by Christ Himself. Our goal is not to harm anyone, but to speak the truth and be alive long enough to rebuild when our sick nation regains her moral foundation. The goal we have for the children is to get them to Heaven. This takes hard work, in the modern world, so we strive to insulate them from the nonsense swirling everywhere around us and innoculate them from poisons they will assuredly encounter in later life.
I don't know if you are correct about bishops being angry with their priests who mention Humanae Vitae in their homilies (I presume you mean that they do so in a favorable light), but I will assume you are correct. What does this tell you, or what should it tell anyone, about the current state of the Episcopate? If Bishops can't be trusted to teach the truth "opportune, importune" as Dr. Von Hildebrand quotes St. Paul, surely THIS is a crime crying out to heaven for vengeance?
To everyone else: PRAY for our bishops, priests and deacons. Find a priest you don't like. Send him a spiritual bouquet. As the late Archbishop of Rochester, NY said in a talk near the end of his life, "If Our Lady can pay hotel bills ....."
Chris
I do not say the bishops are angry -- they just quietly remind the priest that Humanae Vitae is not a suitable sermon topic. Your Tridentine church is of course not typical. And large families are not in themselves proof of acceptance of Humanae Vitae. Even my own mother, a pillar of Irish Catholicism and a fan of Medjugorje and John Paul II, mother of eight children, opines that the church is too severe and should change its teaching on contraception. I suspect that others in her circle of octogenarians are saying the same thing. When you've lost the mothers of Ireland, Chris, you know you're defending a lost cause!
"Right, but the historical use of the word slavery encompassed this as well as other kinds of just title servitude."
Quite, but church approval of slavery was by no means confined to just title servitude.
" The same kind of flim flam takes place with usury; the Church has carefully defined it, but it's more useful propaganda to just pretend that it is "interest on money" without qualification." My point is that the church condemned practices of taking interest on money that it now no longer condemns. The practices have not changed; the teaching has.
"That's why you and Noonan are so sloppy and misleading, Father. I now have Noonan's book in my possession, but a short summary of my findings is still going to have to wait."
Well, I haven't got the book, unfortunately, but Cardinal Dulles said it is a fair and accurate account.
And that you put me in the same breath as Noonan is outrageous. It is as if you put my performance on the piano in the same category as Argerich or Pollini.
Jordan's idea that everything the church officially taught on usury or slavery is infallible is not tenable.
Infallibility is a pretty useless concept if you want to use it to build up an arsenal of certitudes. In fact it has functioned to remind Catholics, especially since the debacle of Humanae Vitae, just how limited is the number of truths that are infallibly defined. And these truths are held even by churches that do not subscribe to infallibility (but only to indefectibility) -- they are truths that have imposed themselves by virtue of their own authority in fact (such as the teachings of Nicea, Constantinople I and Chalcedon).
Father:
Mine isn't a Tridentine parish. Thanks to the generosity of our archbishop, the solid tireless work of the priests (plural) who pray it for us and the indulgence of three pastors in succession, this rite is available to us. Alas, our archbishop is retiring in three weeks, and there is no telling when a replacement will be sent, or who it will be.
I grant your observation about the acceptance of Humanae Vitae by parents of large families with one caveat: in this case the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Church teaching because the large families are merely one component of the case. One mother of 11 children -- not at our parish, incidentally -- was at the local abortuary recently when she offered to adopt the child about to be killed. Many of these families have holy hours. Local councils of the Knights of Columbus actively raise money for a program called "Least Among my Brethren", for retarded children and adults.
Commenting by HaloScan
