Could a Catholic start a non-profit "pawn shop" where the needy poor take out loans using their valuable goods as collateral. The loan would be no more than 2/3 of the value of the good put up as collateral and would last 1 year. This organization would collect a moderate interest (4-12%) on the loan. Plus, the non-profit organization has to store and secure the good, so perhaps it would not be "purely" interest.

The salary for the "overseer" of the non-profit organization would definitely take care of his/her needs. The rest of the net income would pay for the salaries of the workers and to expand this charitable "pawn shop" organization.

Is this sort of arrangement, Catholic?

As a need and poor Catholic, I'll answer you.

You sound like a shyster.  It's a sin to take advantage of someone desperate for money.

Charitable pawn shop!  You live in a bubble.

Thank you for your response.

Any other opinions on this hypothetical "pawn shop".

It also would collect money by asking "donations for the poor". That money would them be lent out at "interest".

Is this, sort of organization, Catholic?

It would be no more charitable than Salvation Army and Goodwill.  Unless you consider the manager as the recipient of charity.

EDITED.

In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. "Ex gravi", unic. Clem., "De usuris", V, 5).

Dulcamara, there is.  It's called St Vincent de Paul

I wish there were a Catholic good-will place! (Off topic.)

There's always selling your stuff on Craigslist and/or a garage sale -- then putting the money to good use (your own family, or another family that needs it more, depending on your situation).

That way, only you and/or your beneficiary benefits by the good -- not some heretical middleman (such as the Salvation Army, which is a protestant sect) Goodwill is a greedy for-profit company, too. I knew someone who worked there -- it's not a good organization at all.

Matthew

Loaning money to the poor may not be as good as GIVING it, but depending on what is charged, it may be the next best thing. If you're broke, and you need money like RIGHT NOW... and all of your options are just a bunch of people who are going to charge you as bad as credit cards would... then I dare say almost anything would be better.

Poor people do not sin when they take out interest loans to pay for their basic needs. The people charging interest do.

I heard on the news once about an organization simply lending money to the poor outright, at a low interest rate (but only very small sums, like in the hundreds of dollars range). Sounds like they sure helped a lot of people that way. Can't Catholics do something similar? I'm sure they can. It's only evil if you're charging an amount that would be unjust or hurting these poor people unduly.

I always understood it as any interest loan for consumption goods was immoral for the person lending. There is no such thing as an ambiguous usurious threshold interest amount, once crossed "it is now usury". That is a modern notion, that "10% interest rates are fine, once you get to 15% it is usurious" or whatever."Interest" can be charged for company investments, then you are sharing in the profits of the company (stocks, dividends, etc).

Just because someone thinks of "lending" doesn't make it evil. If you haven't got much money to work with yourself, you don't have much to lend, or to loose with unscrupulous borrowers. And you have to make SOMETHING to keep the operation going, especially how people get scalped in taxes whenever they attempt to employ themselves. As long as the rates are moral and just, I don't see why this is such an evil idea.

"Interest" loans for businesses are different than interest loans for bread for starving poor (consumables). For the reason I stated above. No interest should ever be charged for consumption loans. So the Church, I believed, taught.

In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. "Ex gravi", unic. Clem., "De usuris", V, 5).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

So how can Montes Pietatis be reconciled with the Church's teaching on usury?

More background:

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.

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