Author Topic: Is it a sin? (Read 1193 times)

jlamos · « **on:** June 07, 2012, 04:21:12 PM »

If I make a website for the real estate or automotive industries am I cooperating in usury since few these days can buy a home or a car without a loan?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:23:39 PM »

Quote from: jlamos

If I make a website for the real estate or automotive industries am I cooperating in usury since few these days can buy a home or a car without a loan?

No. It's permitted to collect interest so long as the interest is about restoring the principle when the currency is always depreciating.

However, it might be you're dealing with real usurers. Even so, your cooperation with them is remote.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:50:40 PM »

Telesphorus said:

Quote

No. It's permitted to collect interest so long as the interest is about restoring the principle when the currency is always depreciating.

Where on Earth did you hear that? Cite a source once in a while. I have never heard anything like that, and it makes no sense; no one knows what the economy is going to do next.

But you are right that his participation is remote. So remote that it is scrupulous to even ask this question.

Right now the interest on house payments is extremely low, because it's the only way to keep the sham economy going, to get yet more suckers to get hooked into 30-year mortgages when most jobs are incredibly unstable. You should ask a priest, not anyone here, but I do know "usury" is defined as charging interest above a certain limit -- I think 20%.

jlamos · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:58:01 PM »

Thank you both. I appreciate your timely answers.

As for scruples, I do suffer from them. Since I am a long way from a Mass center I am a home-aloner by circuмstance which makes dealing with them difficult. I hope to change that soon.

I did place a call to Fr. Cordova, CMRI in Phoenix but got his voice mail, and I am as impatient as I am scrupulous.

Thank you again.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2012, 05:00:17 PM »

Quote

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.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14vixpe.htm

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2012, 05:04:02 PM »

Usury means the practice of collecting interest on money lent, in order to receive more than was lent. That is always wrong, because money is meant to be spent, it has no other use.

However, no one would ever loan money if they could not have the principal returned. So if a currency is known to be depreciating, some level of interest would be necessary to ensure the return of the principal.

And if someone provides money for something like a house or some other income generating property for someone else, then they could have just reason to desire to share in the profits they would otherwise have made until they are repaid the principal of their loan.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2012, 05:11:13 PM »

I doubt much of this stuff is actual dogma. There was blatant usury going on in the last two centuries but the Popes did not crack down on it, to my knowledge. In the Middle Ages usurers were considered to be almost vermin, but that changed as it became more commonplace.

It seems that it's all pretty loosely defined. The idea of absolute equality -- if that is still true, then isn't it participation in sin to collect interest on money that sits in a bank account? By what is said here, everyone on Earth almost would be sinning against commutative justice.

I think, because of the complications of finance, that no one knows where this equality lies. There are just too many factors that go into it all. Have to read up on this subject more.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2012, 05:12:48 PM »

Quote

However, no one would ever loan money if they could not have the principal returned. So if a currency is known to be depreciating, some level of interest would be necessary to ensure the return of the principal.

That makes sense, but in our economy no one knows exactly at what rate it's depreciating. You could take advantage of that grey area, probably, and not sin in charging interest. Above a certain level it would be sin, but who knows where that level is? And only sins that are fully conscious can be mortal sins.