Marcelino
Reputation: 355
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,415
|
| JohnGrey said: | | Marcelino said: |
You seem to know a lot about it, but you also seem to have forgotten one very important point, not all contracts are decent. Hence, they should not all be deemed lawful, at least not by a moral government.
|
If a person chooses to enter a contract it's lawful. No one is putting a gun to their head and saying that they have to sign it. Were that to happen, criminal charges could be filed and the contract negated lawfully. There is no expense that a person can incur that can be paid for via lending and that cannot be avoided voluntarily. They may not wish to avoid it (such as wanting to buy a home), but they can. Other arrangements can be made, or they can find someone that is willing to charitably lend to them without interest. But we're talking about businesses. Predatory lending is certainly a problem, but there are laws (though admittedly rarely enforced) to punish it. But what is also required of the lender is reasonable intelligence and forethought. If you make 60K a year as a manager at McDonalds, you cannot reasonably expect to be able to afford a 600K house, and subprime loans, such as those with balloon payments or teaser rates, don't take an accountant to understand that if you can only just afford the payment in the beginning then you have no chance when the teaser rate expires and the jumps to 12 or 16%. We're all adults here, guys and gals, and if you went to school through sixth grade then you should have the math skills to understand when you can and when you can't afford something.
| Macelino said: |
If i loan someone something, i am entitled to be "made whole." If i have reasonable business expenses, then they could be part of my lending fee.
|
And what if you cannot be "made whole" by the person to whom you lent the money? Is it permissible to bring them into indentured servitude? Or are you just supposed to consider a loss and move on. Under those terms, capital investment, and by extension any development of industry, would be destroyed. |
You seem smart, strong and sincere, but your thinking seems polluted. The part of your post i highlighted expresses the mantra of our age, "it's all about my choice." BOLONGNA! Morality is not determined by your will, it is determined by God! Based on your thinking i can justify anything, from suicide to homosexuality. However, you can't possibly mean that and be the kind of person you appear to be. So, i can only conclude, that your thinking has been contaminated by this age. And in that regard, you are not unique! So, i shouldn't judge you to harshly either, because i'm sure i could fall for much worse things.
|
.........................
It is easier to stir up vice, than virtue.
I like to say acts of contrition for people, when i think they need them and might not be saying them for themselves :-)
|
| Posted Jun 26, 2012, 9:33 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Marcelino
Reputation: 355
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,415
|
| Nishant2011 said: | Thanks for the responses.
SJB, I agree. In fact, if every single person got ten times as much money overnight, the only effect would be that all prices would rise by ten times, and if people rushed to spend money at a greater rate than they did before, then it would rise by even more. That is an economic certainty.
Currency isn't tied to real wealth in actual fact, but people are right in thinking that it should be. Only an increase in capital or consumer goods, in the efficiency or allocation of services can actually increase the real wealth of a community.
But the usual justification is that no one can ever know or measure exactly what the real wealth should be, so they just leave it to banks and the government to try and keep pace with growth. In practice this only leads to a depreciation of the currency. The other claim is that investors need a steady stream of capital ready (that come from other people's savings) so that they can employ it usefully. I'm not sure that in itself is unjust, what are your thoughts.
Marcelino, here is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia on usury.
| Quote: | The just price of a thing is based on the general estimate, which depends not in all cases on universal utility, but on general utility. Since the possession of an object is generally useful, I may require the price of that general utility, even when the object is of no use to me. There is much greater facility nowadays for making profitable investment of savings, and a true value, therefore, is always attached to the possession of money, as also to credit itself. A lender, during the whole time that the loan continues, deprives himself of a valuable thing, for the price of which he is compensated by the interest.
The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same. |
Are you saying all interest is usurious? Or compound interest in particular? If this is the case, do people who put their savings in a bank sin gravely?
JohnGrey, I agree this leads to debasement of currency. How would you respond to those who say that full reserve banking is infeasible and that there is no realistic alternative proposal to ensure a sufficient money supply for investment purposes?
I wonder if anyone can be specific on the culpability of people involved.
|
It's my understanding that the church has been corrupted to a degree on this issue. Apparently, that goes back further than vatican ii. I posted vix pervenit from 1745, i think that is a pretty strong condemnation and apparently, that has never been repudiated. So, like the bible, the church may at times, to the average person, seem to contradict itself.
In regards to savings accounts, buying stocks and bonds, 401ks, etc, i don't think that would qualify as grave sin, because the matter doesn't seem grave, even if the other components are there. The reason it doesn't seem grave is because you aren't in charge of any of this and you are so far removed from the source, your cupability seems very small. You're like a conscript in war, trying to survive. The justness of the war isn't really up to you to decide. You just need to "make it home."
|
.........................
It is easier to stir up vice, than virtue.
I like to say acts of contrition for people, when i think they need them and might not be saying them for themselves :-)
|
 Posted Jun 26, 2012, 9:56 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Jehanne
Reputation: 149
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,548
|
| Marcelino said: | | Jehanne said: | Is "charging interest" an intrinsically evil act? Consider,
| Quote: | "You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest. To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it." (Deuteronomy 23:19-20)
"Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest." (Matthew 25:27) |
|
Very good! Of course, i can prove lots of things, by cherring picking verses out of the bible, that seem to contradict the very message of the bible and the roman catholic church. Apparently, that was a favorite tool of protestants (aka rebellious catholic priests often in league with jews), but i'm not saying you're doing that! I'm just saying that the bible has to be taken in its entirety, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
In the papal encyclical, "vix pervenit" from pope benedict xiv, 1745, the church does seem to condemn usury:
"3. Indeed they proved to be of one mind in their opinions.
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 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."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14vixpe.htm
The modern church seems to have been "conquered" by her enemies (jews, protestants, etc). So, she's weak and only feebly defends the truth.
"When the jews are strong usury is the norm" ~e. michael jones
|
Thanks for the link; I was not aware of this encyclical. Apparently, the Church has never "repudiated" it, if Wikipedia can be believed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_Pervenit
|
.........................
“Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (St. Augustine, Against Julian 5, 4)
“For in this respect they are in the same condition as the greatest sinners; regenerated in baptism they are alike in sanctity; take away baptism, and they perish all together. It is a fact then, that grace seeks its adopted sons even among the worse sinners in their very last moments, and that many who looked less wicked are denied this gift. But who could say that these facts escape God’s ruling or that He decrees them without a profound justice? …It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost.” (St. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations 1, 17; 2, 24)
|
| Posted Jun 27, 2012, 3:10 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
