At 2 minutes and 20 seconds, the bishop makes an error: "Usury ... can be defined as charging and unjust interest rate on a loan." No, usury is (using the word interest as he uses it) charging any interest on any loan. That is what the church teaches, and has never changed its teaching. (I suppose you might argue this Bishop means any interest is unjust, but that is not sensible from the context.)
The above video is cited as evidence in an article of religious efforts to curb the exploitative "payday loans." The article is a litany of religious efforts to fight this injustice. But for each effort is noted a failure to make any progress. Wonder why?
But of course. David wanted to build God a temple, but God forbid him to do so "for the blood on David's hands." Since usury is widely practiced by bishops aplenty, why would God allow them to provide any good here?
Being usury-free is a funny thing, you have to be there to "get it." It is an experience, not an ethical or rational stance one can intellectually arrive at, but an experience. The only way it is going to persuade is from within the regimen. It is in the order of "things unseen."
It is wrong to use usury at 36% to exploit the poor, but not to use it at 12% to build a Cathedral? The church teaches it is wrong, literally at any rate. The only difference between 36 and 12 is the time it takes to do the damage.
Waiting... (Yes, I've read your source. It does not address the teaching, it only makes an impertinent claim....)
The reason the Church, and God, reiterated expressly by Jesus, condemns usury is not because They say so, but because it does damage. It is not possible to exercise usury damage-free.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church twice mentions usury and both times expressly condemning it, noting the recent explicit condemnation of usury by Saint Pope John Paul. I am finding this teaching document far more useful than the Catechism.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain the word usury. Not once. Check it out yourself. It does use the word interest as a synonym for usury once:
The last formal papal teaching of the Church on usury was in the 1740s, Vix Pervenit. If a change had taken place, one might have noted it. Any who who claims a change took place needs to cite the teaching where the change is noted. Again, fill in the blank, I read it, it is someone claiming the church changed its teaching, not a citation of church teaching, or change thereof.
For those who claim it changed, I ask: cite the teaching of the Church.
Can't be done.
Now, as to the problem of payday loans, let one who is usury free start with Catholic teaching:
We all love a system that works for us, and it is easy (and F U N !) to condemn those for whom the system does not work.
Elsewhere, regarding regulations, Jesus expressly says "obey the regulations, just do not be like the regulators." And there is the path to overthrowing the system as it applies exactly to you.
Obey, but know the regulators are your enemy, and do not be like them. Don't use interest yourself. Don't fawn and become obsequious. Within the milieu of conscientious objection to force and fraud, of which usury is both, there are countless creative responses. The pusillanimous regulators and the base politicians simply do not have the time and creativity to keep up with people who are inherently free.
The answer to the problem of payday loans is to teach people they can beat the system, if they will not "be like them." The bad guys came up with a system within politics that obtains the status quo. Appealing to the basest people to amend the status quo is to "be like them." Dead wrong. Either a borrower or lender be, and you are in usury. Don't expect usurers to lead the victimized poor out of usury.
After being proclaimed Messiah, Jesus first act was to overthrow (literally) the economic order. The powers that be turned him over to the Romans, whose response was shock and awe, baby: You want a king, ecce homo! INRI!
We are not the messiah, and we will be (are) off the radar. The freedom from the usurers is there, but you cannot ask them to "only charge 12%" and expect good results. The victims will be just as despoiled, just not as quickly. How is "less bad" good? Why not teach what the church teaches: prohibition of interest (as used in this context)?
The most revolutionary act we can perform is start a business. And don't be like them, make it usury-free.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
The above video is cited as evidence in an article of religious efforts to curb the exploitative "payday loans." The article is a litany of religious efforts to fight this injustice. But for each effort is noted a failure to make any progress. Wonder why?
But of course. David wanted to build God a temple, but God forbid him to do so "for the blood on David's hands." Since usury is widely practiced by bishops aplenty, why would God allow them to provide any good here?
Being usury-free is a funny thing, you have to be there to "get it." It is an experience, not an ethical or rational stance one can intellectually arrive at, but an experience. The only way it is going to persuade is from within the regimen. It is in the order of "things unseen."
It is wrong to use usury at 36% to exploit the poor, but not to use it at 12% to build a Cathedral? The church teaches it is wrong, literally at any rate. The only difference between 36 and 12 is the time it takes to do the damage.
Is it credible to claim exploitation by people who charge 36% and live in palaces when you pay 12% and have a Cathedral? (And note, the most beautiful Cathedrals in Christendom were built without a groat at usury.)
The Bible expressly forbids 1%:
Nehemiah 5:9-11New International Version (NIV)9 So I continued, “What you are doing is not right. Shouldn’t you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? 10 I and my brothers and my men are also lending the people money and grain. But let us stop charging interest! 11 Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the interest you are charging them—one percent of the money, grain, new wine and olive oil.”
The people who once owned fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses are not "the poor" they are the middle class and richer. I do realize there are plenty of sources which contradict this teaching, but sources that contradict the teaching are not the teaching. The teaching is that any usury (what we call today interest for purposes of obfuscation) is wrong at any rate. It is not for me to argue against those who claim usury is permitted, it is for them to demonstrate where the Church permits it.
Waiting... (Yes, I've read your source. It does not address the teaching, it only makes an impertinent claim....)
The reason the Church, and God, reiterated expressly by Jesus, condemns usury is not because They say so, but because it does damage. It is not possible to exercise usury damage-free.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church twice mentions usury and both times expressly condemning it, noting the recent explicit condemnation of usury by Saint Pope John Paul. I am finding this teaching document far more useful than the Catechism.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain the word usury. Not once. Check it out yourself. It does use the word interest as a synonym for usury once:
2449 Beginning with the Old Testament, all kinds of juridical measures (the jubilee year of forgiveness of debts, prohibition of loans at interest and the keeping of collateral, the obligation to tithe, the daily payment of the day-laborer, the right to glean vines and fields) answer the exhortation of Deuteronomy:“For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor in the land.’You'd think with the overwhelming condemnation of usury (charging interest) going back to the beginning of Judaism, and its near universality today, a change might be noted? At least an approval? But the only thing in current official Catholic teaching is a re-iteration of the ancient condemnation?
The last formal papal teaching of the Church on usury was in the 1740s, Vix Pervenit. If a change had taken place, one might have noted it. Any who who claims a change took place needs to cite the teaching where the change is noted. Again, fill in the blank, I read it, it is someone claiming the church changed its teaching, not a citation of church teaching, or change thereof.
For those who claim it changed, I ask: cite the teaching of the Church.
Can't be done.
Now, as to the problem of payday loans, let one who is usury free start with Catholic teaching:
2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215The problem is not vast swathes of people who avail themselves of payday loans, the problem is the vast swathes of regulations that destroy any possibility that the vast majority of people might ever exercise economic initiative in fasco-capitalism.
We all love a system that works for us, and it is easy (and F U N !) to condemn those for whom the system does not work.
Elsewhere, regarding regulations, Jesus expressly says "obey the regulations, just do not be like the regulators." And there is the path to overthrowing the system as it applies exactly to you.
Obey, but know the regulators are your enemy, and do not be like them. Don't use interest yourself. Don't fawn and become obsequious. Within the milieu of conscientious objection to force and fraud, of which usury is both, there are countless creative responses. The pusillanimous regulators and the base politicians simply do not have the time and creativity to keep up with people who are inherently free.
The answer to the problem of payday loans is to teach people they can beat the system, if they will not "be like them." The bad guys came up with a system within politics that obtains the status quo. Appealing to the basest people to amend the status quo is to "be like them." Dead wrong. Either a borrower or lender be, and you are in usury. Don't expect usurers to lead the victimized poor out of usury.
After being proclaimed Messiah, Jesus first act was to overthrow (literally) the economic order. The powers that be turned him over to the Romans, whose response was shock and awe, baby: You want a king, ecce homo! INRI!
We are not the messiah, and we will be (are) off the radar. The freedom from the usurers is there, but you cannot ask them to "only charge 12%" and expect good results. The victims will be just as despoiled, just not as quickly. How is "less bad" good? Why not teach what the church teaches: prohibition of interest (as used in this context)?
The most revolutionary act we can perform is start a business. And don't be like them, make it usury-free.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment